BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

New Southgate Cemetery Bill [Lords]

Third Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 18 April (Standing Order No.20).

Oral
Answers to
Questions

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS ASKED—

Reoffending Rates

Steven Baker: What recent assessment she has made of the potential (a) financial and (b) social benefits of reducing reoffending rates.

Elizabeth Truss: Almost half the people leaving our prisons will reoffend within a year, with a cost to the economy of £15 billion, and countless costs to victims and society. We are giving prison governors the power to be able to turn people’s lives around in order to reduce that level of reoffending.

Steven Baker: Prison should be a place of transformation and renewed hope. What steps has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that prisons are places of reform and rehabilitation?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to ensure that prison governors have all the tools at their disposal to get people the education they may not have had—almost half of prisoners do not have basic English and maths—to get them into jobs and training so that they can go into work and lead a lawful life when they leave prison.

Kate Green: Following the transforming rehabilitation reforms, there has been a 57% increase in the number of offenders being recalled as a result of failure to keep in touch during supervision after short sentences. What action are the Government taking to address this rise in the number of people being recalled to prison, and why is such failure being seen as a result of the reforms?

Elizabeth Truss: It is, of course, important that we recall people who pose a danger to society, but we need to ensure that we are recalling the right people. We are looking at that issue and at wider probation reforms to ensure that we turn people’s lives around not just while they are in prison, but while they are under community supervision.

Bob Neill: One particularly stubborn area of concern has been the above-average reoffending rate of those serving sentences of 12 months or less. Does not that give rise to the need to look again at the effectiveness and use of short sentences as opposed to community penalties, and to look carefully at the way in which the Through the Gate programme operates? There is a real concern that there is not adequate follow-up for people who are released under these circumstances.

Elizabeth Truss: The Chair of the Select Committee on Justice is right that we need to get better at intervening before people commit crimes that lead to custody. As well as announcing a review of probation and the way in which it operates, we are looking at community sentences. We are ensuring that good community sentences are in place and that there is a higher use of mental health treatment orders and drugs desistance orders, which reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Thangam Debbonaire: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to reduce reoffending by domestic violence perpetrators in prisons and in communities?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that as we have got better at dealing with issues of domestic violence, there is more we can do. That is why I am leading a joint taskforce with the Home Secretary to look at the law around domestic violence. We are also ensuring that domestic violence victims are protected in the family court. Under the Prisons and Courts Bill, abusers will no longer be able to cross-examine domestic violence victims, and that is an important step forward.

Andrew Selous: I am sure the Secretary of State will welcome the fact that companies such as Boots, Barclays, Carillion, Land Securities, Ricoh and many others have “banned the box” to improve the chances of ex-offenders getting jobs. However, does she share my concern that some quite big household names have not yet stepped up to the plate? Will she do her bit to get them over the line alongside those other good employers?

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he did to get more employers involved in this when he was a Minister. We are following on from his good work by setting up an organisation called the New Futures Network, which will comprise businesses and charities. The network will encourage more employers to take on ex-offenders, who are often very loyal and hard-working employees, and who can help to address some of the skills shortages we face.

Yasmin Qureshi: Reoffending now costs us £15 billion annually, as the Secretary of State just said. A recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate  of probation noted that not enough is being done to help prisoners to prepare for life outside prison, due  to a
“combination of unmanageable caseloads, inexperienced officers, extremely poor oversight”.
The service was rated as four-star before privatisation. What will the Secretary of State do to address this?

Elizabeth Truss: As I have said, it is important that people are supported to get into jobs once they leave prison. Just as we are establishing metrics for governors, showing how many people are employed once they leave prison, we want to use similar metrics to hold probation operators to account to make sure that they are focused on getting people into homes and into work, which we know leads to a reduction in reoffending.

Youth Justice System

David Burrowes: What progress her Department has made on reforming the youth justice system.

Phillip Lee: On 24 February, we announced changes to improve governance of the youth justice system. We are creating a new youth custody service headed by a dedicated, experienced director who will lead on operational delivery, and we have appointed Charlie Taylor as the new chair of the Youth Justice Board.

David Burrowes: Young people in custody now have more complex needs, and more than three quarters of them have been excluded from school. How will we put high-quality education at the heart of the youth justice system, so that young people can have a second chance of getting the skills they need to break the cycle of reoffending?

Phillip Lee: My hon. Friend is, as ever, spot on with regards to the importance of education. We are bringing forward plans on secure schools, and we are going to put health and education at the centre of that. I strongly believe that when people leave the youth justice system, they should be fit in body, fit in mind and fit to play a positive part in society.

David Hanson: Has the Minister had a chance to see this morning’s damning report on G4S’s performance at Oakhill training centre? Has he yet made a decision on whether he plans to allow G4S to flog off the centre to an American buyer?

Phillip Lee: Yes, I have seen the report. In fact, it confirmed what I encountered myself on a recent visit to Oakhill. We are aware of the difficulties there, and we are also aware that G4S is in the process of trying to sell the youth justice arm of its business. I am keeping a close eye on that process, and rule nothing out when it comes to looking after the children and indeed the broader security of society.

Michael Tomlinson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the appointment of Charlie Taylor as the new chairman of the Youth Justice Board. I warmly welcome the new figures showing that fewer young people than ever are  entering the youth justice system in the first place, but reoffending rates remain stubbornly high, especially for those young people sentenced to a period in custody. What more can the Minister do to improve those rates and stop our young people reoffending?

Phillip Lee: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the Government strongly believe that we need to create an environment in which young people can learn and be rehabilitated so that they can play a more positive part in society. Our plans for secure schools—one in the north-west of England and one in the south-east of England—will build on that in the future.

Toby Perkins: Is overcrowding or understaffing the biggest problem in our youth justice system?

Phillip Lee: No, it is not. [Interruption.] The problem is not overcrowding. There are some issues around staffing, which is why we have brought forward our plans on creating a new role for the youth justice officer. Those individuals are going to be attracted to work specifically with children. We are also developing the youth custody service as part of our plans around Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, because we believe that there should be a distinct service to deal with children in the criminal justice system.

Philip Hollobone: Youth reoffending rates are among the highest of all prisoners, and we have just heard that reoffending costs this country a total of £15 billion a year. Surely the obvious answer is to make sure that all prisoners serve their time in jail in full before they are released out into the public.

Phillip Lee: Specifically in the youth justice system, I believe that the most important thing is to ensure that when young people are in custody, we take every opportunity to treat them if they have mental health problems and to provide the necessary education for future employment prospects so that when they leave the institution, they are less likely to reoffend.

Richard Burgon: It has been reported that Working Links, an outsourcing company criticised for its handling of probation services, including for failures in Wales and the south-west, is the company that it is in talks to buy Oakhill secure training centre from G4S. Is it part of the Justice Secretary’s reforms to youth justice to allow private companies with no experience in youth justice to run our youth custody centres?

Phillip Lee: It is not about ruling out whether private or public organisations should provide care in the youth justice system. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the original contract for Oakhill was signed in 2005, and the terms of the contract were set then.

Insurance Premiums

John Pugh: What assessment the Government have made of the effect of recent changes in the discount rate for compensation for accident victims on the level of insurance premiums.

Elizabeth Truss: As Lord Chancellor, I made a decision to lower the discount rate. Not to have done so would have been unlawful. Under the law, I may only consider the impact on victims, not defendants. As I have said, the system needs to be reformed, because I do not think it is right that a discount rate is set on an ad hoc basis by the Lord Chancellor.

John Pugh: Another organisation affected, to the tune of £1 billion, is the NHS. What discussions has the Lord Chancellor had with the NHS Litigation Authority on this topic?

Elizabeth Truss: I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary to discuss the implications for the NHS. As I said, under legislation the Lord Chancellor must only consider the impact on the victim. I do not think the procedure works in the right way, which is why I will shortly bring forward a consultation on a better way to set the discount rate.

Jonathan Djanogly: There seems to be some element of confusion in the minds of the public. The insurance industry says that car insurance premiums will go up because of the fall in the discount rate, while the Government, quite rightly, say that insurance premiums should come down because of the proposed changes in the Prisons and Courts Bill. Is this a question of netting off, with no change to premiums at all, or can the Lord Chancellor be slightly more scientific?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend makes the point that there are different issues around the discount rate and whiplash. The measures on whiplash in the Prisons and Courts Bill should reduce insurance premiums by, on average, £40. The issue about the discount rate is very different: it is an independent decision that the Lord Chancellor has to make. I am saying that we need to review the way that decision is made, and I will be bringing forward a consultation on that very shortly.

Whiplash Claims

Luke Hall: What progress has been made on ensuring that only legitimate whiplash claims are successful.

Oliver Heald: Measures to disincentivise minor, exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims are being taken forward in the Prisons and Courts Bill, and through changes to reduce the cost of litigation by increasing the small claims limit.

Luke Hall: Whiplash claims have increased by 50% over the past decade, at a time when cars are becoming safer and the number of road traffic accidents is falling. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is time for reform? Can he confirm the extent to which consumers will benefit through lower car insurance premiums, and how does he intend to hold insurance companies to their side of the bargain?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the fact that as cars have become safer there have been fewer road traffic accidents. It is shocking that whiplash cases have gone up by over 50% in the past 10 years. The reforms I mentioned will, taken  together as a package, ensure that the genuinely injured receive compensation, and fraudulent and exaggerated claims are tackled.

Ruth Cadbury: Six thousand vulnerable road users—pedestrians and cyclists—responded to the Justice Department’s consultation on the reforms, expressing concerns that cyclists and pedestrians would be disproportionately affected by any increase in the small claims limit. Will the Minister discuss the proposals with officials and consider excluding vulnerable road user claims from the increase, as discussed yesterday by Cycling UK?

Oliver Heald: I pay tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary cycling group, which the hon. Lady co-chairs. We have taken account of the overall effect of the measures and looked at the representations made. She will have noticed that some of the original proposals have not been taken forward, and the ones we have taken forward we believe are proportionate.

David Nuttall: Obviously, none of us wants fraudulent claims for damages, but have the Government made any assessment of the effect the changes proposed in the Prisons and Courts Bill will have on the numbers of litigants in person?

Oliver Heald: Yes. The Government are keen to change the way in which the courts work to make them not just the best in the world but the most modern. This involves new procedures that use online technology—virtual hearings for some small matters and so on. The overall effect is to improve access to justice and improve life for litigants in person. We also have a special strategy for litigants in person, which helps them.

Jim Shannon: It is very important that we keep insurance premium payments low. However, there is also a need for a framework that ensures there is adequate compensation for serious accidents. How can a balance be struck?

Oliver Heald: It is important for that balance to be struck. The whiplash proposals relate to the most minor claims—cases in which the pain and suffering lasts for up to two years. Even then, there is provision for judges, in exceptional cases, to award more than the tariff that is proposed. When serious injuries are involved, however, the system will continue as it is now. It will still be designed to recompense people properly for the injuries that they have suffered.

Michael Fabricant: A few years ago, I was shunted up the backside—my car was, I mean. Although I was perfectly well, I received a phone call from someone who asked me whether I had whiplash. I said, “No, I do not have whiplash.” The person said, “Oh, go on! Say that you do have whiplash.” I did not do that, because I am an honourable person. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to reduce the number of bogus claims.

John Bercow: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so accident-prone. I remember serving on a Bill Committee with him many years ago, and receiving the   distressing news that he had been bitten in a sensitive place in the course of an excursion overseas. He really does seem to suffer a disproportionate share of ill fate.

Oliver Heald: In those circumstances, my hon. Friend showed the strength of character that I would have expected of him. It was, of course, shocking to hear from colleagues, during our Westminster Hall debate, of the experiences that they and their constituents had had of this dreadful cold calling. People are being begged to start proceedings when they have not had  an injury.

Richard Burgon: The Minister claims that there is a compensation culture surrounding whiplash when, in reality, the number of claims has been falling for five years. Even if that were true, however, I should like to know why he is penalising workers throughout the country by increasing the personal injury limit to £2,000, rather than focusing solely on whiplash.

Oliver Heald: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman—with his background as a personal injury lawyer—raising those concerns. [Laughter.] I see another one behind him, waiting to ask a question.
The simple answer is that it was right to increase the personal injury small claims limit to £2,000. That just reflects inflation. The last increase was in 1991, so it  is time for another. As for the whiplash cases, I stand  by the £5,000 limit, which I think will get rid of the exaggerated claims.

Richard Burgon: The Minister has mentioned inflation. In his 2009 review of civil litigation costs, Lord Justice Jackson opposed any increase in the small claims limit until inflation justified an increase to £1,500. The Government now propose to increase it to £5,000. Can the Minister explain, here and now, precisely how that specific figure was arrived at?

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are plagued by a series of minor, exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims, and we want to tackle that. We believe that the combination of no settlement of claims without a medical report, the tariffs in the Bill, and the raising of the small claims threshold will disincentivise those claims. The hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that the limit for ordinary money small claims is £10,000.

Personal Independence Payments: Inverclyde

Ronnie Cowan: What proportion of appeals against personal independence payment awards in Inverclyde were successful in (a) 2015 and (b) 2016.

Oliver Heald: In 2015, 52% of appeals against personal independence payment awards heard in Greenock were successful. Between January and September 2016, the latest period for which data are available, the proportion was 57%.

Ronnie Cowan: I thank the Minister for that catch-up on Greenock.
It is clear that a rapidly increasing number of constituents are losing their benefits, and subsequently winning their appeals. My constituents inform me daily that they are without benefit entitlements for eight to 10 weeks, and many are losing their Motability cars as well. Does the Minister agree that sanctions should not be enforced until the appeals process has been exhausted?

Oliver Heald: I think that the hon. Gentleman should view the position in context. The Government are spending £50 billion a year on supporting people with disabilities and health conditions, and the new PIP arrangements mean that 65% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions are receiving the highest rate; the proportion used to be only 22%. Overall, the system works, and the fact that there are appeals and they succeed shows that it works.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. The question is about Inverclyde, from which New Forest West, North Swindon and Wrexham are a considerable distance away.

Desmond Swayne: rose—

John Bercow: Well, all right—if the right hon. Gentleman can focus exclusively on Inverclyde.

Desmond Swayne: Indeed, Mr Speaker. The successful proportion would not matter nearly so much if the Minister could arrange for those appeals to happen a hell of a lot quicker, and if he can fix it in Inverclyde—well, I need not spell it out, Mr Speaker.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend makes the important point that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is important that cases are brought on quickly. We monitor them very carefully and provide extra days to tribunals as required, so he can be assured that we are not complacent about this.

Mental Health Problems: Prisoners

Alistair Carmichael: What steps she is taking to ensure that prisoners receive appropriate treatment for mental health problems.

Phillip Lee: Prisoners are far more likely to suffer from mental health issues than the general population. From April, we will introduce a co-commissioning  approach into prisons in England, with governors making decisions about prison healthcare alongside local NHS commissioners. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are devolved in Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed, although the Howard League tells us that 2016 was the worst year ever recorded for suicides in prison, with one prisoner every three days across the UK taking his or her life. Does the Minister accept that the earliest diagnosis— and the best diagnosis—will not make much difference if we continue to house prisoners in overcrowded prisons, with the most vulnerable being locked up 23 hours a day?

Phillip Lee: Each of those cases is a tragedy and my condolences go to the family concerned. The right hon. Gentleman is right that it is important to hold prisoners in appropriate circumstances. We are working hard to improve the mental health training of staff, and we are in lengthy discussions with the Department of Health about the broader provision of mental health care.

James Duddridge: What analysis has the Department done on people going into prison with mental health problems, as opposed to acquiring mental health problems in prison?

Phillip Lee: We are working hard on continuity of care in the transmission of notes from the community into the custodial estate so that we can improve our pick-up of mental health problems when prisoners arrive. There is ongoing training of staff so that if mental health symptoms develop within prison they can be spotted and the appropriate care provided.

Luciana Berger: When inmates become so acutely unwell that the prison is not equipped to care for them, they should receive appropriate treatment under the Mental Health Acts. In the outside world, this happens within 24 hours; in prisons, the guidelines recommend 14 days. An answer I received to a parliamentary question last year showed that, of 1,141 prisoners, three in four waited more than that two-week window. What action is the Secretary of State taking to rectify this urgent situation?

Phillip Lee: The hon. Lady is right that access to secure accommodation can be challenging—not only within the prison system but within the community for those who have not committed offences, who cannot always access it within 24 hours. We are in lengthy discussions with the Department of Health on this, because access to secure accommodation in the circumstances the hon. Lady outlines is very important.

Yasmin Qureshi: Last year, 2016, was the worst recorded for suicide in prisons. The Secretary of State introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill, but it contains nothing to address mental health issues. Why has the Justice Secretary missed this valuable opportunity to enshrine in law the way in which we treat prisoners with mental health problems?

Phillip Lee: Last year’s prison White Paper contained something on healthcare, giving governors input into the commissioning of services, so that if there is an issue with mental health provision the governor can  say so.

Legal Advice

Jason McCartney: What progress has been made on making access to affordable or pro bono legal advice more widely available.

Oliver Heald: The Government’s court programme aims to deliver a justice system that is more accessible. Legal support needs to reflect the new way in which the justice system will work, so a Green Paper is proposed for early next  year. I recently addressed the Civil Justice Council and was able to pay tribute to the work of Mr Justice Knowles and the tireless work of everyone in the pro bono sector that does so much for our country.

Jason McCartney: Will the Minister join me in thanking law students from Huddersfield University law school and local law practices for their excellent work in providing a fantastic Huddersfield legal advice clinic in the Packhorse centre? Does he agree that as constituency MPs we must make sure that we can direct our constituents not only to pro bono legal advice but to affordable and accessible legal advice?

Oliver Heald: Huddersfield University is known as a beacon in this area, and it has done tremendous work. I was pleased to meet some of the students during pro bono week last year. I pay tribute to them and to all the universities and other bodies that set aside time to help people with their legal work.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will know that much good pro bono work is going on in the legal profession, but does it balance all the crooked, bent solicitors in the insurance industry who are practising in our towns and cities and who are behind the conspiracy over whiplash?

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the improper behaviour that occurs in some cases. It is right that the Solicitors Regulation Authority and disciplinary tribunals take a tough line on that. We have seen some recent examples of that.

Alex Chalk: Barristers and solicitors across the country are making a remarkable pro bono contribution worth around £600 million per annum, but they cannot do it all. Does the Minister agree that pro bono must be an adjunct to, and not a replacement for, a properly resourced legal aid system?

Oliver Heald: I do agree with that, but with the caveat that we are changing the way in which the justice system works so that it is simpler and more accessible. We are also using modern technology. We should look at how legal support dovetails with all that. So, yes—but we are moving forward with our plans.

Joanna Cherry: In a report called “Cuts that hurt”, Amnesty International highlights the devastating impact of legal aid cuts on vulnerable groups in England. Amnesty concluded that the cuts had decimated access to justice. What steps is the Minister taking to review the impact of the Government’s cuts to legal aid in England and Wales?

Oliver Heald: When I addressed the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, I was pleased to meet members of Amnesty International to discuss their concerns about particular areas of law. We have announced our timetable for the review of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which involves delivering a full memorandum to the Justice Committee by May and holding a full review going through into early next year, at which point there will be a Green Paper on legal support.

Joanna Cherry: Since 2013, legal aid funding has not been available in England and Wales for many immigration cases, including family reunion cases. Unaccompanied or separated children making applications to stay in the UK have to do so on their own, without legal assistance. Given Amnesty’s findings, will the Minister follow the example of the Scottish Government and provide legal advice and assistance to vulnerable individuals such as those children, who have to navigate a very complex immigration system?

John Bercow: Justice questions would be a lot shorter if we did not have quite so many lawyers. They are very clever and eloquent, but they do take up a lot of the time.

Oliver Heald: I am not going to make my declaration about that now, Mr Speaker. This is a complex issue. There is a role for the local authorities to play, and there is some legal aid available, but I am in correspondence with Amnesty and am looking into the matter in detail.

Court Proceedings: Media Reports

John Whittingdale: What recent assessment she has made of the extent to which local media report on court proceedings.

Oliver Heald: We are committed to upholding and strengthening the principle of open justice, in which local reporters play an important role.

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that more than half of local newspaper editors have said that they think the courts are no longer being reported properly? Does he agree that justice needs not only to be done but to be seen to be done, and that the decline of local media represents a real threat to that principle? What more can be done to address this issue?

Oliver Heald: Yes, I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. This is an important area. We are committed to upholding open justice, and local reporting of court proceedings is a key part of that. Under our reforms, we will publish lists of forthcoming criminal cases and their outcomes. We will also allow access to virtual hearings via video screens in local courts, so that reporters can see those proceedings anywhere in the country. We hope that that will make a contribution to the important principle that my right hon. Friend highlights

Ian Lucas: Does the Minister support the BBC’s proposals to work with local newspapers and local websites such as the excellent Wrexham.com to improve the coverage of court proceedings and local coverage generally?

Oliver Heald: In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) was the initiator of that scheme, which we do support.

Prison Officers: Recruitment and Retention

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What steps she is taking to increase recruitment and retention of prison officers.

Graham Evans: What progress the Government have made on recruiting more prison staff.

Tom Blenkinsop: What steps she is taking to increase recruitment and retention of prison officers.

Elizabeth Truss: In November, we announced a £100 million investment to increase prison officer  numbers by 2,500. We are on target with that recruitment, and I can tell the hon. Lady today that 700 officers are currently in training—a record number.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: An inspection report on Durham prison published this morning shows that 60% of prisoners report feeling unsafe—up from 37% in 2013. At the same time, the number of staff has reduced from 190 to 159. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is harder for prison staff to keep themselves and prisoners safe when numbers have been so reduced? What is she going to do to improve prisoner safety now?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the concerning report on HMP Durham. We are addressing issues of recruitment in that prison, and in prisons across the country. We have created 2,000 new positions at a more senior grade for experienced officers with mental health training and other types of training. Those positions will be available in Durham, which will help us to retain some of our experienced and valued staff.

Graham Evans: Retaining and recruiting experienced staff is crucial to the success of any organisation. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to keep experienced prison officers, particularly in the north of England?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are creating an additional 2,000 positions, which will be paid around £30,000. They will be available in his local area and in Durham, because it is vital not only that we ensure that we have enough staff—we are recruiting 2,500 prison officers—but that we retain our highly valued existing staff right across the country.

Tom Blenkinsop: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Research by the Community union found that the main barrier to retention was not pay but safety. Prison officers in both private and public prisons feel unprepared, isolated, and undermined. Will the Government conduct a complete review of the training, support, and development given to prison officers and act on Community’s call for a set of adequate minimum safety standards?

Elizabeth Truss: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that prison officers have raised concerns about safety. We are employing more prison officers so that one officer will have a case load of six offenders, which will help to keep prisons safe and, importantly, turn people’s lives around. We are reviewing training and  the career structure for prison officers, ensuring that there are opportunities for promotion and to take on leadership roles.

Peter Bone: The Government are closing down old, ineffective prisons and replacing them with modern prisons. In fact, they are building capacity for 10,000 new places on the basis of old for new. Will that not help to retain prison officers?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right. I was delighted that we were able to say that Wellingborough will have one of those new prisons. We have just opened HMP Berwyn in Wrexham, which is operating well already and will help us to deal with overcrowding. The new prisons will also ensure that we are able to attract and retain prison officers in places where offenders can be reformed.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I rise to speak as chair of the cross-party justice unions parliamentary group. As the Secretary of State mentioned, HMP Berwyn opened its doors and accepted its first men last week, but how can she condone paying newly recruited prison officers in north Wales £8,000 less than new recruits in south-east England?

Elizabeth Truss: I am determined to ensure that we recruit the right number of officers right across the country. In the south-east, where costs are high and where there is much competition for highly skilled individuals, we have specific issues with recruiting and retaining people. However, the 2,000 new more senior roles that I mentioned are available right across the country, and people in HMP Berwyn will be able to apply for them with that extra training and get that extra pay.

Yasmin Qureshi: There are now 6,000 fewer prison officers on the frontline than in 2010, and they are dealing with more prisoners. The Secretary of State wants 2,500 extra officers by 2017, but officers are leaving the service faster than she can recruit them. When will she come up with an effective plan to turn around that expanding exodus?

Elizabeth Truss: I am afraid that there were two factual errors in the hon. Lady’s question. First, the prison population is exactly the same as it was in 2010—it has not gone up. Secondly, we are recruiting people at a record rate and have a record number of officers in training.

Court System

Wendy Morton: What progress the Government have made on modernising the court system.

Oliver Heald: We are investing £1 billion to reform and take paper out of our courts, and the Prisons and Courts Bill underpins those reforms.

Wendy Morton: The Prisons and Courts Bill clearly underpins the Government’s vision to modernise our court system, but I am particularly interested in the measures to allow victims and vulnerable witnesses to  avoid the risk of coming face to face with their assailant. Will my right hon. and learned Friend update me, please?

Oliver Heald: We will obviously have physical measures, such as the use of screens in courts, but we also intend to maximise the use of video links in criminal court proceedings, to roll out pre-recorded evidence and to make greater use of prison-to-court video links. The Bill also helps to protect vulnerable witnesses in family cases by banning cross-examination by perpetrators in certain circumstances, including where there has been domestic abuse.

Dan Jarvis: The Victims’ Commissioner’s review of children’s entitlements in the victims code found that the justice system is failing to meet a child’s right to receive information and for that information to be communicated in a timely way. Why does the much-needed update to the young witness pack remain incomplete? When will every child giving evidence get accurate and updated information about the process?

Oliver Heald: We are talking against a background where improvements are being made for victims all the time. I accept that more needs to be done for children, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are looking to produce further measures for victims in due course, and I will make sure that that is considered.

Prison Service Pay Award

Jim Cunningham: Which organisations she consulted on the prison service pay award announced by her Department on 19 February 2017.

Sam Gyimah: We have announced that, in prisons where recruitment and retention are most difficult, we will offer a combination of higher starting pay and an additional allowance of up to £5,000 a year, taking the salary of officers in those jails to up to £30,000. The relevant trade unions were advised in advance.

Jim Cunningham: Good management suggests that we lift up the lower paid in the Prison Service, which will help with recruitment and, more importantly, lift morale.

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We want to make sure that our hard-working prison officers are well rewarded. Our announcement on 19 February, to which he refers, was specifically designed to tackle jails where it is very hard to recruit because of the high cost of living in their particular market. This year’s pay award for all prison staff is a matter for the independent pay review body, to which we will submit evidence shortly.

Imprisonment for Public Protection: Sentences

Christopher Chope: How many people are serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection which have lasted for more than twice the length of their original sentence.

Sam Gyimah: As at 31 December 2016, there  were 2,006 unreleased prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection who had served more than twice their original tariff.

Christopher Chope: I thank my hon. Friend for that depressing statistic. My constituent has served not twice but five times the length of his original sentence. Having been sentenced to two and a half years for actual bodily harm, he has been in prison for 12 and a half years. When is he going to be released?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman is obviously aware that the IPP tariff was introduced by the last Labour Government, and abolished by the Conservative Administration in 2012. Our efforts are now focused on giving IPP prisoners the support, opportunities and motivation to progress more quickly so that, when they are reviewed by the parole board, they have the best possible prospect of securing release. We are tackling delays in the system and have identified what more needs to be done. A specific unit is looking at individual cases in order to progress them as quickly as possible.

Prison Work

Huw Merriman: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that prisoners work and earn while they serve their sentences.

Elizabeth Truss: We are launching new performance metrics that will measure not only the amount of work taking place in prisons but the percentage of prisoners who secure employment on release, and we will use those measurements to hold governors to account. We are also creating new apprenticeships in areas where there are skill shortages, such as construction, retail, catering, logistics and digital, so that prisoners can go into relevant roles.

Huw Merriman: We know that paid work transforms lives. Rather than provide purely menial work or training, will the Lord Chancellor require prisoners to pay their way via skilled employment, which can continue when their sentences end?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is correct. We are taking an outside-in approach: we are finding employers who have jobs to offer on the outside, and they then start to deliver training on the inside, so that the individual goes straight into an apprenticeship or employment on release. We already have a very successful scheme involving Land Securities and Halfords, and we are building up the number of employers that are part of that arrangement.

Margaret Ferrier: There are many great examples of prison enterprises, such as the Freedom Bakery, which is a social enterprise artisan bakery that operates in the Scottish Prison Service at HMP Low Moss near Glasgow. What measures are the Government taking to encourage such initiatives south of the border?

Elizabeth Truss: That is an important initiative. We have several initiatives in our prisons, including the Clink Restaurant and the Bad Boys’ Bakery, which does  excellent baked goods—I think I mentioned it last time. There are huge opportunities in catering and cheffing, in which we have skill shortages. We can do a great deal with apprenticeships to make sure that people are trained up to take on those roles on release.

Concerted Indiscipline: Prison Response

Gavin Shuker: What steps she is taking to review the capability of (a) HM Prison Service and (b) contracted-out prisons to respond to incidents of concerted indiscipline.

Sam Gyimah: All prisons, both private and public, face the same challenges to safety and security. We are continually reviewing and supporting prisons across the estate to mitigate and manage serious threats and incidents.

Gavin Shuker: On how many occasions in the past year have private prisons required the support of the public Prison Service to deal with prison indiscipline?

Sam Gyimah: Mutual assistance across both sectors is in place in the event of an incident to provide immediate support to those prisons in need. That means that private sector prisons can provide support to public sector prisons—and vice versa—in the event of a serious threat or incident.

Prison Safety and Security

Amanda Solloway: What steps the Government are taking to make prisons safer and more secure.

Sam Gyimah: We are taking urgent action to improve prison safety and security, alongside reforms to overhaul the system to focus on the rehabilitation of offenders. This includes tackling the supply and demand of drugs, drones and phones, which drive prison violence and undermine safety, and redoubling our efforts to address the record levels of suicide and self-harm.

Amanda Solloway: I am the rapporteur to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is conducting an inquiry into mental health and deaths in prisons. Last week, we took evidence from four serving prisoners, including on the issue of safety. One young man told us that he had received only two days’ advance notice of when he was due to be released, causing him great anxiety about accommodation and having a sufficient support network. Will the Minister undertake to look at the resettlement problem?

Sam Gyimah: I would be surprised if the gentleman my hon. Friend mentions was informed of his release only two days in advance, but I would of course be happy to look into the situation in more detail.

Rob Marris: When the Minister replied to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) about safety in prisons, he forgot to supply my hon. Friend with the number. What is the number?

Sam Gyimah: The answer is very straightforward: mutual assistance exists for prisons to support each other in both the private and public sectors.

Diana R. Johnson: Staff morale is very important to safety and security in prisons, so I wish to ask the Minister again about the flexibilities that I understand governors will have on pay increases from 1 April. Will that mean that we could end up with prison officers in Hull being paid less than prison officers down the road in Leeds? How will that affect morale?

Sam Gyimah: No. As I said in my answer to a previous question, the matter of Prison Service pay will be decided nationally. The independent pay review body will also submit evidence throughout this year. That will still be the case where we have governor freedoms, but, in giving governors their budgets, they will be able to decide on the mix of staff and how to deploy them.

Foreign National Offenders: Legal Aid

Simon Danczuk: What proportion of legal aid is allocated to cases of foreign nationals convicted in the UK who are appealing against deportation.

Oliver Heald: It is not possible to isolate cases of that type using the data recorded by the Legal Aid Agency.

Simon Danczuk: Just as McCloskey condemned lawyers from Burton & Burton, which represented members of the Rochdale grooming gang, for gaming the system, he also said that Government should investigate that and other examples. What steps is the Minister taking to look at the bad use of legal aid?

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Legal Aid Agency does investigate cases that are brought to its attention, and there have been recent examples where contracts have been removed. It is also important to make the point that, even where there is the possibility of legal aid and representation for foreign national offenders, it is limited to cases involving the refugee convention or articles 2 or 3.

Prison Estate: Isle of Wight

Andrew Turner: What her plans are for unused land on the prison estate on the Isle of Wight.

Elizabeth Truss: We are working on potentially transferring the former Camp Hill site to the Homes and Communities Agency. This is an opportunity to develop the site, build new homes and regenerate the local area.

Andrew Turner: That is most impressive. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Councillor Richard Hollis to discuss the possibility of a car park near Albany prison?

Elizabeth Truss: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, as indeed would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.  As I have said, we are seeking to transfer the site to the Homes and Communities Agency. Yesterday, I had a meeting with officials to urge them to get on with it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Finally, I call Owen Thompson. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) keeps chuntering “Bingo” from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) must be accommodated.

Leaving the UK: Human Rights

Owen Thompson: What her policy is on the protection of human rights after the UK leaves the EU.

Oliver Heald: Human rights have been protected in the UK since long before our membership of the EU, and leaving the EU will not change that.

Owen Thompson: What assurances can the Minister give that any future trade deal that is agreed by the UK Government and the EU during negotiations will contain a commitment to human rights?

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is looking at that issue. The Department for International Trade has given evidence on this, saying that it is constructing its approach to such agreements at the moment. This country has always been a strong supporter of human rights, and I cannot see that changing.

Topical Questions

Bob Blackman: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: Last month, we introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill. For the first time, as well as punishing offenders by depriving them of their liberty, a key purpose of prison will be reforming offenders. There will be a new framework and a clear system of accountability. I will account to Parliament for progress. We are also putting in a strengthened inspectorate and an ombudsman for sharper external scrutiny. We are modernising our courts system and ensuring that vulnerable victims and witnesses are no longer cross-examined by their alleged abusers in the family court.

Bob Blackman: My Homelessness Reduction Bill reaches its Committee stage in the House of Lords on Friday. One provision is to ensure that prison governors prepare prisoners so that they are not homeless when they leave prison. What action has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure that prison governors are aware of their responsibilities under the new law?

Elizabeth Truss: First, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are making sure that we measure how successful prison governors are at getting people into accommodation once they leave prison. The public will be able to see  that information, as it will be publicly available. I am also speaking to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and working with him on his homelessness plan, and helping ex-offenders get into homes is a key part of that.

Martyn Day: The Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that sweeping powers would be devolved to Edinburgh following Brexit. However, when asked for clarification, he promised criminal justice powers, which are already devolved. Will the Justice Secretary confirm what that will entail, or is double devolution just a cover for a post-Brexit power grab?

Elizabeth Truss: As the hon. Gentleman knows, those issues are being discussed by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is important that we get a deal that is good for the entire United Kingdom.

James Berry: Mobile phones in prisons allow criminals to deal drugs, intimidate their victims and continue criminality from within their prison cell. Will my hon. Friend say how the powers in the Prisons and Courts Bill will help to address the scourge of mobile phones in prisons once and for all?

Sam Gyimah: The measures in the Prisons and Courts Bill will allow the Secretary of State to authorise mobile network operators to block illicit mobile phone signals across entire prison sites. That will allow industry experts to work more creatively and effectively to block signals, which means that we will not require a court order to stop the illicit and harmful use of mobile phones in prison.

Douglas Carswell: Obviously, we do not want to follow the United States in politicising the judiciary. However, to ensure some degree of public accountability when appointing Supreme Court judges, might the Minister consider allowing the Chair of the Justice Committee to sit on the relevant appointment panel?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts on this issue. I point out that there is currently an open competition for Supreme Court justices. I want to encourage as many qualified candidates as possible to come forward. The closing date is the 10th, so if any are listening, I want them to apply for the role. It is very important to distinguish between the situation in the US, where there is a written constitution, and here, where we have a sovereign Parliament and the role of the Court is to interpret legislation. The Select Committee absolutely has a role to play, post-appointment, in making sure that it is holding the Supreme Court justices to account, but I think that it would be dangerous to muddy the water with pre-appointment hearings.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman looks cruelly let down, but we will have to cope.

Mims Davies: Some of my constituents who work in Winchester prison have highlighted directly with me the challenges that they  have at work, locally and nationally. As the Lord Chancellor is keenly aware, there are rising challenges around extremism in prisons. Will she update the House on the progress of the new directorate for security, order and counter-terrorism?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: extremism is a worry in our prisons. That is why we set up the new security and counter terrorism unit in the Ministry of Justice. That unit is progressing with implementing the recommendations of the Acheson review that the Department adopted last summer.

Toby Perkins: The Government sensibly introduced section 67 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 to allow the police to arrest paedophiles for sending sexual communications to children, rather than waiting until they actually meet. However, the power cannot be used until the commencement order is passed. It is two years since the Act became law. Will the Secretary of State say how much longer the police will have to wait until they can keep our children safe?

Elizabeth Truss: I am looking at this to get on with it imminently.

Karl McCartney: I have been raising the issue of false and exaggerated whiplash claims ever since I was elected. Can the Lord Chancellor ensure that her plans for change in this area will be successful and result in real benefits, such as much lower premiums for law-abiding drivers?

Oliver Heald: May I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done on the Transport Committee to highlight this important issue? We hope that every motorist will see a benefit of £40. We are certainly pressing hard on the issue.

Ian Lucas: Police and voluntary services are being overwhelmed on the streets of Wrexham by incidents of the use of psychoactive substances. Will the Lord Chancellor please ask Her Majesty’s prison Berwyn to share its specialist knowledge of the subject with agencies in Wrexham?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We have expertise in dealing with psychoactive substances. We have rolled out tests across the prison estate, and we are working on prisoner education to deter people from that type of drug abuse. I am very happy to facilitate a meeting with the Prison Service and the hon. Gentleman, so that we can make progress together.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State share my concern at the content of the answer to my earlier question? Will she get a grip on this important issue, and will she follow the lead of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) in saying that prisoners such as the one I mentioned earlier should be released immediately?

Elizabeth Truss: First, I am very happy to make sure we look into the case my hon. Friend raises. We do have to remember that public protection must always be our priority, so while we are keen to see people get the  training and re-education they need to secure a successful parole hearing, we must always make sure the public are kept safe.

Kate Green: Rather than curtailing access to justice for those with legitimate personal injury compensation claims, why are Ministers not cracking down on the cowboy aggressive marketing of claims management companies?

Oliver Heald: It is important to do both, and we have a package of measures that achieves that, so I do not think the hon. Lady need concern herself that we are not taking this forward.

Lucy Frazer: As the Secretary of State mentioned, the Supreme Court judges application process ends on Friday. In circumstances where around 20% of Court of Appeal judges and 20% of High Court judges are female, what is she doing to ensure we get more diversity in our highest courts?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. We have never had a female Lord Chief Justice or a female Master of the Rolls. Out of 11 Supreme Court justices, only one is a woman, and that is not good enough in modern Britain. What we need to do is make sure it is easier for highly talented solicitors to apply to go on the bench, and Lord Kakkar is looking at that. We are creating direct entry into the High Court for talented individuals, and we are also creating the 100 top recorders competition to encourage more entrants from among good individuals.

John Cryer: Given the 30% cut in prison officer numbers since 2010, and given the poor retention rates among new recruits, at what point will the number of officers reach the appropriate level?

Sam Gyimah: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in answer to an earlier question, we are investing £100 million to add 2,500 prison officers, and we have more officers in training than we have ever had before.

Justin Tomlinson: The vast majority of successful personal independence payment appeals succeed because of late additional submitted evidence. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department of Health to automatically share supportive medical evidence at the beginning of the process?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the way in which the process should work, and it has been the aim of the reforms to achieve that, but I am happy to discuss the issue further with him.

Margaret Ritchie: Does the Secretary of State recognise that current human rights legislation adheres minimally to the provisions contained in the Good Friday agreement for Northern Ireland and therefore that the Human Rights Act 1998 should be retained?

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. As she knows, we have made an announcement that there will not be an imminent change, because,   although we have a mandate for that, we want to find out what the outcome of the Brexit negotiations is, and that is, in itself, a major constitutional change.

Tom Pursglove: Developing skills in prison is crucial to successful rehabilitation, but it is important that those skills translate into the real world. What consideration are Ministers giving to ensuring that skills development in prison dovetails with the needs in the industrial strategy?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know he is a big supporter of the new Wellingborough prison. In that prison, as well as in others across country, we are looking at areas where there are skills shortages—whether it is in construction or catering—and making sure that we start apprenticeships in prison that can then be completed on the outside, so that we can bring new, skilled people to important industries.

Conor McGinn: There are reports today of children being held in solitary confinement in prisons in this country, which is shocking, immoral and probably unlawful. Surely, the Secretary of State understands that, whatever chance these young people have of turning their lives around, they will not find it if they are locked in a cell for 23 hours a day. Will she commit now to ordering an end to this practice?

Phillip Lee: I am aware of the reports from the Howard League. The safety and welfare of young people held in custody is our highest priority. I would stress, though, that these cases are extremely difficult. Some of these young individuals are extremely difficult to manage, and governors on the ground have to make decisions that are in the interests of the broader community in prison and the wider security of society.

Nigel Huddleston: Given the disturbing revelations this morning relating to Facebook and the use of sexualised images of children online, are we doing enough to protect our children, online and offline?

Elizabeth Truss: I am working on this subject very closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. We need to ensure that more people are brought to justice—in fact, there has been an increase of 140% in those brought to justice for sexual offences—but we also need to make sure that internet companies are doing their bit to crack down on this practice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. If the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) can be as brief as she is illustrious, the House will be blessed.

Fiona Mactaggart: Ministers have praised the Corston report on women in the criminal justice system and yet are currently planning, I hear, to open specialist units for women as adjuncts to men’s prisons, going in the opposite direction to the Corston report. Can they reassure me that I am wrong?

Elizabeth Truss: I can reassure the right hon. Lady that she is wrong and we are not doing that. In fact, I will be giving a speech this afternoon on the 10th anniversary of the Corston report, and she is very welcome to come along.

John Bercow: Put a copy in the Library of the House and we will all be blessed.

Bob Neill: The Ministry has released figures showing that the number of incidents of drugs being found in prison more than quadrupled from 2,500 in 2015 to 10,400-plus in 2016, yet the National Offender Management Service does not keep a central register of cell searches, which is where many of these drugs are found. Will that change?

Sam Gyimah: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for that question. We will take every action necessary to make sure that we deal with the scourge of drugs in our prisons.

Melanie Onn: After a constituent of mine residing in HMP Lindholme was seriously assaulted when other inmates had access to keys to their cells while he did not, is it not abundantly clear that the people who are in charge of our prisons are not governors, and certainly not the Secretary of State, but the prisoners?

Sam Gyimah: That is certainly not the case. We do recognise, however, that by recruiting more staff and strengthening the frontline we will make it much easier for staff to challenge and support prisoners. That is why we have announced new investment to recruit 2,500 new officers for our jails, and we are also enabling a caseload of one prison officer per six prisoners, so that they can support our prisoners in the efforts to rehabilitate them.

James Duddridge: While significant progress is being made on foreign national offenders being returned, what analysis is there of foreign national offenders coming into the system—and, crucially, do we monitor whether there is a net reduction in foreign national offenders on the estate?

Sam Gyimah: The number of foreign nationals entering our prisons is monitored by the Ministry of Justice. Our figures indicate that between 30 June 2008—the highest point—and 30 June 2016, there was a 14% decrease in  the total foreign national prisoner population. This is good progress, but I acknowledge that there is still a lot more to be done.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Extreme brevity, please.

Richard Arkless: Despite the Government’s attempt to recruit more prison officers, staff rolls at many prisons continue to fall—High Down’s went down by 30. Is this recruitment drive working, or are demoralised prison officers leaving before they can recruit more?

Elizabeth Truss: We have launched a very important prison officer recruitment programme, and we have a record number of officers currently in training. However, we need to recognise that it takes time to recruit and train these officers. That is why we are also making sure that we pay our experienced officers at the right level and creating new, more senior roles for experienced officers as well as getting new recruits in.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Let us hear from Members who have not so far been heard.

Louise Haigh: I am afraid that the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) was simply not good enough. Can she explain why, after two years, she still has not commenced the law to protect our children from sexual predators?

Elizabeth Truss: I assure the hon. Lady, as I assured the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), that this is imminent.

Rachael Maskell: With cuts to local government funding and other sources, access to advice on civil matters is being squeezed harder than ever. There are cuts of 50% in York. What is the Justice Secretary doing about this?

Oliver Heald: As I explained earlier, we are re-engineering the system so that it is much easier to access for members of the public, and we are also reviewing legal aid.

HOUSING BENEFITS (18 TO 21-YEAR-OLDS)

John Healey: (Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement on the impact on homelessness of the Government’s plans to remove automatic entitlement to housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds.

Caroline Nokes: From 1 April, automatic entitlement to housing costs will be removed for some 18 to 21-year-olds. This is a Conservative manifesto commitment and it was formally announced as a Government measure in summer Budget 2015.
This policy removes a perverse incentive for young adults to leave the family home and pass the cost on to the taxpayer. This is about stopping young people slipping straight into a life on benefits, and it brings parity with young people who are in work but who may not be able to leave the family home, while an unemployed young person can do so.
We have always been clear that this policy will have a comprehensive set of exemptions, to make sure that the most vulnerable continue to have the housing support that they need, so the policy will affect only those who have no barriers to work and who are unable to return safely to their parental home. In addition, there is a time-limited exemption for those who have recently been in work. The policy will apply only to those in universal credit full service areas who make new claims or whose earnings drop below the in-work threshold after that date.
The policy will be implemented at the same time as the new youth obligation, an intensive package of labour market support for young people from day one of their claim. With new support available under the youth obligation, more young adults will move into work, significantly improving their current living standards and future prospects.

John Healey: My urgent question—this concern is shared by Members on both sides of the House—was: what assessment has been done of the impact of the cuts on homelessness? With respect to the Minister, she has made a statement but she could have given a one-word answer, which is “none”. No impact assessment was published with the regulations on Friday. Why not? How many young people will now be denied all help with housing benefit? There are 1,741 18 to 21-year-olds in the Minister’s county of Hampshire claiming housing benefit. How many of them will still get help next month, and how many will get nothing?
The Minister may not have done an assessment, but the charities that work day in, day out to help the homeless in all our constituencies have done so. Centrepoint says that 9,000 young people will be put at risk of homelessness. Shelter says that
“there is no way this isn’t going to lead to an increase in rough sleeping.”
Crisis, which drafted the very important Homelessness Reduction Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), says that the policy “runs entirely counter” to the aims of that Bill, and that it
“could spell disaster for the many vulnerable young people rightly entitled to help.”
Surely the Minister does not think that those charities are wrong. If she knows they are right, surely the Government are not going to go ahead with these cruel and counterproductive cuts.
Members on both sides of the House have deeply held concerns about the rapidly rising level of homelessness in our country. Will the Minister accept that none of the arguments that she has made today or previously really stack up? She says that this is about levelling the playing field, but these young people, who are old enough to marry, work, pay taxes and fight for our country, will now be denied the same right as other British adults to basic help with housing costs.
Ministers have said that the exemptions will protect the vulnerable, but the National Landlords Association declares:
“Never mind the nuances, all landlords will hear is that 18-21 year olds are no longer entitled to housing benefit…they just won’t consider them as a tenant.”
Ministers have said that this will save money, but once the knock-on costs to other services are taken into account the saving will fall to only £3.3 million.
The Minister talked about the manifesto; it contained a commitment to remove the “automatic” entitlement. Claimants already have to pass multiple checks and tests, so there really is nothing automatic about young people getting housing benefit. Will the Minister recognise that the Government have the opportunity in tomorrow’s Budget to reverse this counterproductive policy? Will she leave the House this afternoon and tell the Chancellor that if he does so, he will have the fullest support not just from Opposition Members but, I suspect, from Members across the House?

Caroline Nokes: The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of those across the country—he specifically mentioned Hampshire—who are already in receipt of housing benefit. They will have transitional protections and will not be affected. So when he asks how many in the county of Hampshire will have their housing benefit withdrawn, the answer is none, the same as for every county. He also raised the case of those who are serving in the armed forces, of taxpayers and of couples who have children. If he looked at the list of exemptions that was published on Friday, he would see that those are all included.

Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the light of all the exemptions, we are actually talking not about the children, but about the responsibilities of the parents? Are we not seeing here a reassertion, rightly, of the responsibilities of parents for unemployed young people under the age  of 21?

Caroline Nokes: My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. This is about encouraging family responsibility. It is about enabling and helping young people who have the choice to remain at home to stay there. For those who cannot stay at home, a very significant exemption is written in; those for whom it is inappropriate to stay in the family home will be exempted from this policy.

Mhairi Black: Yesterday, SNP MPs joined others to try to annul this ludicrous legislation. The Government seem to be working on the incorrect assumption that young people can simply stay at home, when parents have no obligation to house their adult children. The SNP has consistently opposed the withdrawal of housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds, but under the current powers of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government cannot reverse the cut or provide an exemption for Scotland. Does the Minister agree that it is simply ridiculous that young people should suffer purely because the Government are obsessed with imposing austerity? Can she tell us how many young people will be affected who do not qualify for an exemption? Does she think that an unemployed young adult is more likely to get a job if they have a stable address, or if they are living in a hostel or sleeping on the streets? Will the UK Government exempt Scottish young people from the impact of the regulations and allow the Scottish Government to provide the housing support on their behalf?

Caroline Nokes: The Scottish Government already have a wide range of powers that would enable them to alleviate the proposed changes. Our Government are committed to working with the Scottish Government on a whole range of issues in the DWP portfolio, to make sure that they have the power and the strength  to implement those powers.

Justin Tomlinson: What are the Government doing to ensure that this policy supports young people who are in work?

Caroline Nokes: My hon. Friend is right to mention young people who are in work. Anybody who is working 16 hours a week or more at the national minimum wage equivalent will be exempt.

Ed Miliband: I think we should call this what it is: a nasty, vindictive policy that will make injustice worse, from a Government who said that they would tackle burning injustice. Will the Minister now answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) asked? No impact assessment has been published for the measure—inexplicably, in my view. Will she tell the House what advice she has received from her officials about the impact on homelessness of this proposal?

Caroline Nokes: The Department has, of course, met all its requirements under the public sector equality duty. Equality assessment information has been received and shared with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which chose not to consult on this.

Desmond Swayne: Young people in their first jobs cannot afford their own accommodation, so they share with other young people or they stay at home. Why should it be different for people who are out of work?

Caroline Nokes: My right hon. Friend makes exactly the point that underpins this policy. We want young people in work and young people out of work to be making the same choices about where they are going  to live.

Luciana Berger: I think that anyone listening to this urgent question would, frankly, be appalled by the responses that we have had thus far from the Minister. She has not answered any of the questions that were rightly asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). Will she tell us why the equality impact assessment has not been published and when she will bring it forward, so that we can all see exactly the rationale behind this ridiculous policy?

Caroline Nokes: I think I have answered that. The Department has engaged extensively at ministerial and official level with stakeholders. We announced this measure in the summer Budget. There is no duty on us to share the impact assessment with the House, but we did share it with the Social Security Advisory Committee.

Lucy Allan: Will the Minister confirm that care leavers will not be affected by these changes?

Caroline Nokes: My hon. Friend makes a really important point about care leavers. Absolutely, they are exempt from this policy.

Clive Betts: One of the exemptions in the regulations where housing benefit can still be paid is if
“in the opinion of the Secretary of State it is inappropriate for the renter to live with each of their parents”.
Does the Secretary of State assume that this exemption will automatically apply where the parents refuse to have their child living with them?

Caroline Nokes: Absolutely. That is a point. A very important exemption is included, so where that is inappropriate—where a parent cannot or will not accommodate their child—such people will be exempt from the policy.

James Cartlidge: The key point is that nipping the dependency culture in the bud at the earliest opportunity is very important, because once it takes hold it can be very damaging to the interests of those concerned. I must say one thing, however: young people may well think this is fair, but when we do this and protect every single penny going to pensioners, including the winter fuel allowance for millionaires in mortgage-free mansions just because they are over 65, they can be forgiven for thinking that we are not playing fairly by everybody. That would be my observation.

Caroline Nokes: We are trying to play fairly by young people who are in work but have to make the decision that they simply cannot afford to leave the family home and stay living with their parents.

Neil Gray: Will the Minister explain the rationale for denying young adults access to housing and support, while providing it for older adults? On the face of it, and from the Minister’s comments so far, it appears to be nothing other than the demonisation of young people.

Caroline Nokes: This is not about the demonisation of young people; it is about encouraging young people to make sensible and rational choices about where they are going to live, whether or not they are in work.

Kevin Hollinrake: As a parent of two children between 18 and 21, I would be appalled if I felt that they had left home to live a life on housing benefits while they still have a bed in my house. Will the Minister confirm that support will be made available for those who are vulnerable or have complex needs?

Caroline Nokes: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and absolutely yes. Those who cannot live with their parents and those in receipt of the main disability benefits will be exempt from this policy.

Karen Buck: Further to the question from the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), will the Minister confirm what I believe she said earlier, which is that the only thing necessary for a young person to demonstrate before being entitled to the housing element of universal credit is that their parent has said that they cannot live at home?

Caroline Nokes: Yes, and I think I have made that very clear. If it is inappropriate for a young person to live at home with their parents, they will be exempt from this policy.

David Burrowes: The YMCA tells me that, from April, it may not be able to house young people with the most complex needs, those with addictions and mental health conditions, those who may not be able to learn or earn, and those who cannot or will not stay at home or, indeed, access temporary accommodation. In relation to supported housing for vulnerable people, which is at stake, will the Minister clarify the scope of the exemption in regulation 4B(e), and defer the application of the impact on those at most risk of homelessness until we know the outcome of the supported housing review?

Caroline Nokes: The YMCA has been involved in the consultation process. As I believe I said at an event downstairs last night, it is always a trusted adviser that provides excellent advice and information. Absolutely: those with complex needs and mental health conditions will be exempt from this policy.

Melanie Onn: Will the Minister tell me whether she has made any assessment of the impact of these changes on excellent small charities, such as Doorstep in my constituency, that help young people who find themselves unable to continue to live at home?

Caroline Nokes: I have received a great deal of information from and had roundtables with a number of providers and charities, including some of the smaller ones. We have been very clear: those for whom it is inappropriate to live at home will be exempt from this policy.

Bob Blackman: The principal reason why young people become homeless is a relationship breakdown with their family. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State, not by local decision makers who may discriminate against young people when they cannot live with their family?

Caroline Nokes: I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent work on the Homelessness Reduction Bill. Absolutely: it is a question of young people informing a work coach, somebody in the local authority or a trusted medical professional of their inability to live at home because their relationship with their parent has broken down, and in those cases they will receive the exemption.

Maria Eagle: Given that the Minister has conceded that there is an impact assessment—she said that she has not published it because she does not need to—and in view of the concern that exists, would she care to think again and publish the impact assessment?

Caroline Nokes: We looked very carefully, under the public sector equality duty, at the impact this policy would have and we have shared that information with the Social Security Advisory Committee. I am under no obligation to publish it.

Nigel Mills: Will the Minister explain how the policy will apply to young people on apprenticeships, who may be earning below the national living wage?

Caroline Nokes: My hon. Friend makes a really important point in apprenticeship week. Absolutely: apprentices will be exempt from this policy.

Ivan Lewis: Last Thursday, as part of the work I am doing on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on homelessness in Greater Manchester, I went around the streets of the city centre of Manchester and was shocked to see the risk that young people face from the dealing of psychoactive substances and the threat that they face from violence. Does the hon. Lady not understand that this will force significantly more young people in our country into rough sleeping and make them increasingly vulnerable? Is this not the personification of the return of the nasty party?

Caroline Nokes: The hon. Gentleman makes the assumption that this will increase homelessness. In fact, we expect there to be behavioural change and that young people will, where they can, stay living with their parents. Where they cannot stay living with their parents, they will be exempt from this policy.

Philip Hollobone: At a time when the public is increasingly fed up with politicians who do not do what they say they will do at election time, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on the audacity of sticking to a Conservative manifesto commitment? Will she confirm that youth unemployment actually continues to fall and that, week by week, more and more young people have the security and dignity of taking a wage back home?

Caroline Nokes: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are 197,000 more young people in work than there were in 2010. He is right: this policy was a manifesto commitment and it was in the summer Budget of 2015, and we are delivering on that commitment.

Helen Hayes: The vast majority of my young constituents who need to access housing benefit are doing so in the private rented sector, which means that they already face crippling costs and great insecurity. Why can the Minister not see that, across the board for young people, this policy simply makes precarious situations more precarious, stigmatises young people and is nothing short of a kick in the teeth? Why are the Government ignoring the overwhelming evidence from those who work with young people showing that this policy will make homelessness worse, and why will she not drop it?

Caroline Nokes: As the hon. Lady will have heard, we have put in place a long list of exemptions to protect those who are most vulnerable and to enable those who need the support to continue to receive it. She makes the really important point that we are there to support the most vulnerable and also to ensure that there is an even playing field between those in work and those who are not. One of the most straightforward ways in which to be exempt from this policy is to be working for 16 hours or more a week.

Amanda Solloway: Like the Minister, I am a great supporter of the YMCA. Will she confirm what impact the measures will have on all these young people, who benefit in so many amazing ways from organisations such as the YMCA?

Caroline Nokes: The YMCA is among the best and leading training providers in the country, and it is also a significant housing provider. We are determined to work with such stakeholders to make sure that young people who are exempt from the policy receive that exemption and are still supported to make sure they are in training so that they can move into the work they need.

Drew Hendry: My constituency has full service before most other constituencies. The Highland Council’s temporary homeless accommodation framework is £175 a week. Before universal credit, my constituent Gavin was awarded £168 a week, leaving £7 extra to find from other entitlements. Now, it is £60, meaning £115 extra, which is much more than he gets, even before he pays for his food, light, heat or anything else. How is that fair?

Caroline Nokes: The hon. Gentleman did not say how old his constituent is. It is really important that we are focusing support on those who need it most. When it comes to young people, we are obliging them to make the same sort of choices that his constituents who are in work for 16 hours or more a week are making.

Luke Hall: Will the Minister confirm that the Government are doing everything possible to prepare young people for the world of work, so that fewer young people are at risk of falling into a life on benefits?

Caroline Nokes: The Government are bringing forward the youth obligation in April, which is about making sure that young people who are not in work are undertaking the appropriate training or apprenticeship they need to put them in the best position to move into work.

Yvonne Fovargue: May I return to the definition of “inappropriate to return”? Would that include a case that I have heard about: a young man who was kicked out by his stepfather for being gay,  but was told he could return home if he denied his sexuality?

Caroline Nokes: Yes. We have been very clear about that. If a young person would find it impossible and inappropriate to return home, they would receive the exemption. The situation outlined by the hon. Lady is absolutely one that we have considered.

Jess Phillips: Drilling down into the exemptions, who will make the decisions about cases such as the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue)? Similar exemptions exist for victims of domestic violence to access legal aid—they need a letter from a doctor or from a specialist agency—but 37% of women still report that they are not able to access legal aid. How does the Minister propose that the policy will work, how much will it cost and how much will it save?

Caroline Nokes: The anticipation is that the policy will save in the region of £105 million over the period of this Parliament. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that victims of domestic violence are exempt from the policy. We recognise the impact on young women who have been victims of domestic violence, and the importance of supporting them.

Lisa Nandy: The young people the Minister describes bear no resemblance to the young people I used to work with at the youth homelessness charity Centrepoint, many of whom had experienced horrendous physical, mental and emotional abuse, which meant that they understandably no longer had a relationship with their families. How does she expect those young people to prove that they cannot return home? They cannot simply pick up the phone to their parents, and they should not be forced to recount to a stranger again and again the stories of what had happened to them. What will the Minister do to make sure that young people are not subjected to reliving the horrendous abuse that they have already suffered?

Caroline Nokes: Those who have reported abuse to a stakeholder or a trusted professional will be exempt from the policy. It is our intention to ensure that we establish a long list of stakeholders who can take on that reporting. It should, of course, be the case that they should only have to report it once.

Alan Brown: Yet again, for ideological reasons the Tories have identified a problem that does not really exist. Less than 1% of 18 to 21-year-olds claim jobseeker’s allowance and housing benefit at the same time. We have heard that the policy will only save £105 million if it actually works as planned. Will the Minister tell me one non-Government stakeholder that agrees that it will help young people into long-term, stable work?

Caroline Nokes: We put the policy in our manifesto for the 2015 election and included it in the summer Budget 2015. We have been really clear that it is about  providing fairness for those who are in work as well as those who are out of work, and ensuring that young people have the same decisions to make about the affordability of their housing.

Graham Jones: There has been a war on young people by this Government for seven years, and this is the most shameful policy they have brought forward affecting the most vulnerable. Not to produce an impact statement is an absolutely disgrace. The Minister talks about getting people back into work, so let us talk about what the Government have done for young people’s wages. An apprentice wage is £3.50 an hour. How on earth can that person get to work if they are denied the assistance they need for housing and they cannot work near their home?

Caroline Nokes: As I said earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), apprentices will be exempt.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I have come across many reasons that 18 to 21-year-olds have left home, but I have never seen claiming housing benefit as an incentive. Given the long list of exemptions, would it not just be easier for the Minister to scrap the policy altogether?

Caroline Nokes: The Government included this as a manifesto commitment, and are determined to deliver it.

Liz McInnes: The Minister talks about an even playing field. If she is so confident that the policy is fair, why will she not publish the impact assessment? What does she have to hide?

Caroline Nokes: There is absolutely nothing to hide. I have considered my public sector equality duty carefully. As I said, the assessment was shared with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which chose not to consult on this.

David Hanson: I would like to help the Minister. She is almost there. She said that this policy will save £105 million. We can work out how many people will be affected when we leave the Chamber, but will she confirm whether it is in the region of 10,000? Is the figure higher or lower than that?

Caroline Nokes: The policy is expected to affect 5,000 young people in the first year, and 10,000 a year in steady state.

Cat Smith: Given that the number of people rough sleeping has more than doubled since 2010, does the Minister think that the policy, which singles out young adults, will make that shameful statistic better or worse?

Caroline Nokes: As I have said repeatedly, we have put in place a long list of exemptions precisely to prevent homelessness. Those who are unable to return to the family home will be exempt from the policy, so we do not expect it to increase homelessness.

Chris Stephens: The lack of a published impact assessment is simply scandalous. Will the Minister tell us the measured impact on a vulnerable young person who has had to leave home because of difficulties or abuse, and who is now being asked to prove that abuse just so they can get the housing support they need to live away from their family?

Caroline Nokes: A vulnerable young person who has had to leave home because of abuse will, of course,  be exempt.

QUEEN’S SAPPHIRE JUBILEE

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Andrew Rosindell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a national public holiday marking the Queen’s Sapphire Jubilee in 2017 and to establish a framework to ensure that the United Kingdom, its overseas territories and Crown dependencies appropriately commemorate this occasion; and for connected purposes.
The 65th anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen’s accession to the throne was marked on 6 February this year. This is a truly remarkable milestone for the longest-serving monarch in the history of our proud nation and peoples. Her Majesty the Queen’s sapphire jubilee must surely be a cause for great celebration across the British Isles, in all corners of the kingdom and, indeed, throughout Her Majesty’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies, her other realms and across the Commonwealth of nations.
During Her Majesty’s reign, there have been three royal jubilees: the silver jubilee of 1977, the golden jubilee of 2002 and the diamond jubilee of 2012. In each case, the British people paid tribute to Her Majesty for her service to the nation with spectacular events in counties, cities, towns and villages throughout these islands. There were parades, street parties, church services, fêtes, cultural events and school assemblies, and beacons were lit up and down the land.
National celebrations took place, usually in June, with services of thanksgiving at St Paul’s Cathedral, combined with military parades through the streets of London and, for the diamond jubilee, a flotilla along the River Thames. Her Majesty, the Duke of Edinburgh and other members of the royal family have appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace while the spectacle of a fly-past by the Royal Air Force and the Red Arrows took place. Indeed, in the case of the golden jubilee, Concorde flew overhead. Millions of people filled the streets of London, gathering on the Mall to cheer the Queen, celebrating with flags, singing and dancing. On each occasion, the nation’s spirits were lifted. Come rain or shine, the people rose to the occasion the length and breadth of the nation.
The silver, golden and diamond jubilees brought the entire country together in nationwide displays of affection for the Queen, and the sapphire jubilee must surely do so again this year, reminding us of our rich heritage and cultural identity as part of a Great British family, sharing a union of the Crowns unbroken since 1603. Whether we consider ourselves to be English, Scottish, Ulstermen, Irish, Welsh, Manx, Jerseymen, Guernseymen, Gibraltarian, Falkland Islanders, Bermudian, Montserratian, Caymanian or, indeed, whichever identity within the British family we happen to call our own, the celebration of the Queen’s sapphire jubilee must be a cause that brings each and every one of us together in honour of Queen and country.
We only need to look around the world today to see politicians as Presidents, Prime Ministers and leaders of nations who come and go, but how fortunate we are here in the United Kingdom to have such a dedicated, neutral head of state as a constitutional monarch who  defends our laws, upholds our democracy and is the guardian of our constitution, providing the foundations for stable and accountable government.
Just as previous jubilees have been celebrated far and wide, it must surely be right that the sapphire jubilee is, too. In fact, I say to this House that Her Majesty’s sapphire jubilee should be the greatest of all, as no other monarch has reached 65 years on the throne, and it is inconceivable that any other future king or queen will accomplish such an achievement for centuries to come. We must not allow this year to pass by without a celebration befitting the occasion, saluting Her Majesty for all she has done for our nation and the wider Commonwealth, but also to prove to ourselves once again that what unites our country and people is much greater than what divides us.
Her Majesty the Queen is undoubtedly the most unifying figure of our nation; indeed, she is the fundamental component of our common British identity. As a people, we share common beliefs, principles and obligations, so let us cherish our common heritage, and in so doing ensure our common destiny.
It is my fervent belief that the Queen exemplifies all that is great and good about our nation, and represents the continuity that our forebears did so much to hand to us, most especially the freedom of our island home that we cherish so much today. As our queen and sovereign, Her Majesty brings steadfastness and stability to our constitution, our parliamentary democracy and throughout our society. The importance of this steadfastness cannot be understated. Her Majesty is the single greatest flagbearer of stability and continuity.
The Queen’s sapphire jubilee must be a time for everyone to celebrate this great milestone in the history of our island people, whether they be from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, the Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark or the Isle of Man, the sixteen overseas territories or in the communities of people of British ancestry scattered across the globe.
The United Kingdom, in taking the lead, will also encourage Her Majesty’s other realms to celebrate the sapphire jubilee—after all the Queen is also Queen of Antigua and Barbuda; of Australia; the Bahamas; Barbados; Belize; Canada; Grenada; Jamaica; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Saint Kitts and Nevis; Saint Lucia; Saint Vincent and the Grenadines; the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. Our friends in these nations must also have the chance to celebrate, as the sapphire jubilee is as much their celebration as it is one for the British Isles.
My Bill will ensure that all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies will be able to mark the occasion of the Queen’s sapphire jubilee with a celebration that such a significant landmark deserves. It will give councils the authority to make plans now for local celebrations, providing for street parties, carnivals and special events to take place without the tiresome bureaucracy that can so often get in the way.
One weekend in June could be designated “sapphire jubilee weekend” with an additional bank holiday immediately afterwards, which could be a national day for a thanksgiving service. The “weekend of trooping  the colour” might also be an option for the official sapphire jubilee celebrations. As this is first ever sapphire jubilee of a reigning British monarch, we cannot allow this great occasion to go uncelebrated. On the contrary, Her Majesty’s 65th anniversary as our sovereign and Head of State must be an opportunity to unite all British people, together with those of other nationalities who have made Britain their home and who might also wish to celebrate with pride and patriotism.
In presenting the Bill today, my hope is that it will draw attention to this highly significant event. Time may be short to arrange celebrations for June, but I believe the spirit of our nation will inspire the people to make Her Majesty the Queen’s sapphire jubilee a spectacular occasion that will be remembered for generations to come, as we demonstrate our heartfelt thanks to Her Majesty for what she has done for our country and for what continues to be a truly glorious reign. I commend the Bill to the House.

Liz McInnes: Although I have no objection whatever to the people of the United Kingdom, and those more widely, celebrating the Queen’s sapphire jubilee, I feel that, as with most proposals, the devil is in the detail. That is why I am forced to speak against this Bill.
I would like to press for greater detail so that we may learn from the problems created for UK workers from the most recent extra public holidays, which were held on 29 April 2011 to celebrate the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, and on 5 June 2012 to celebrate the Queen’s diamond jubilee. On both those occasions, I was working for the NHS and I was also an elected workplace trade union rep for Unite the union. As I am sure all Members will appreciate, not everyone in the NHS was able to enjoy those public holidays. Essential public services still have to be provided and many staff were required to remain in work on those days in order to provide emergency and urgent care.
Problems arose with how these staff were to be remunerated, because NHS terms and conditions under “Agenda for Change” specify that staff are entitled to eight bank holidays per year, and those extra holidays counted as the ninth bank holiday. My NHS trust refused to pay staff who were working on those days at the bank holiday rate and instead paid them at the normal daily rate. I was trying to negotiate a better rate of pay for these staff, my union members, but I came up against a blanket refusal from management to recognise those days as bank or public holidays that would therefore qualify for the higher rate of pay. Before the diamond jubilee holiday, I even wrote to the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. His reply, unfortunately, was unhelpful, merely re-stating the NHS management view. We were left with a situation in which hard-working, dedicated NHS staff who gave up their days off in order to provide a vital service were not adequately remunerated—and I do not want to see that happen again under this Bill.
Unite revealed that 113 NHS employers in the UK treated the diamond jubilee as a normal working day, denying staff the normal bank holiday pay and time-off-   in-lieu arrangements. Unite had even written to the Queen on behalf of its 100,000 members in the health service on this issue—alas, to no avail.
Additionally, in April 2011, prior to the royal wedding, the Daily Mail reported that, according to a poll by the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals, more than a tenth of employers said that they would not be giving their workers a paid day off. Employment law experts said that workers were the victims of a lottery that depended entirely on the wording in their contract. For example, if a contract states that the employee is entitled to 28 days’ holiday, including all bank and public holidays, the worker would be entitled to paid time off. However, if the contract stated that the worker was entitled to 28 days’ holiday including eight bank and public holidays, that would not confer the right to be off, because the royal wedding constituted a ninth bank holiday.
On that day in 2011, all 163 Debenhams stores were open, but the staff did not receive extra pay. Conversely, and showing better practice, Tesco stores said that staff who worked the public holiday would be paid at up to three times their normal rate. Following the royal wedding holiday where some employers failed to give their staff the day off, the TUC wrote to the Government in order to add a provision to holiday entitlement to take account of any special bank or public holidays, but sadly no such provision was made.
With that in mind, one way to avoid the situation arising every time an extra public holiday is announced would be to increase the number of bank holidays from eight to nine per year, with the extra bank holiday to be used to celebrate a significant occasion that year—the occasion to be determined by Parliament.
As I stated when I rose to speak, it is right that we should celebrate the Queen’s record of an amazing 65 years’ long service, but I ask for more clarity to enable employers and employees to reach a better understanding of the practicalities of arranging an extra public holiday, most importantly the rates of remuneration for the emergency workers who give up their time, so that others may enjoy the day off and the celebrations.
I will conclude by asking three questions. Will the Bill specify how the holiday should be characterised and the rates of pay for those who have to work on the day? How will the Bill ensure that all employers participate and give staff the day off without resorting to the use of loopholes? Will the Government now take heed of the TUC recommendation that provision should be made for workers’ holiday entitlement to take account of additional public holidays?
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Rosindell, Sir Julian Brazier, Mr Douglas Carswell, Tom Elliott, Michael Gove, Kate Hoey, Daniel Kawczynski, Norman Lamb, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Albert Owen, Gavin Robinson and Michael Tomlinson present the Bill.
Andrew Rosindell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2017, and to be printed (Bill 151).

POINTS OF ORDER

Luciana Berger: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Ah, the day would not be complete without points of order.

Luciana Berger: I would like to raise my concern that Ministers of both the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice appear to be evading my very serious named day questions. As colleagues well know, it is intended that named day questions receive an answer within three sitting days, yet I can recite countless recent examples where that timeframe has not been observed—and often completely disregarded.
I am particularly troubled by an answer I received from the Secretary of State for Health to one question. Last year, I submitted a question to ask how often the transfer time for prisoners experiencing an acute mental health crisis exceeded the two-week guidance period. I found that in 2015-16 three out of four cases took longer than two weeks. When I submitted an identical question last month, to get hold of the most recent figures for 2016-17 to date, I was told that the data are not held in the requested format. When I tabled a subsequent question to inquire whether the data collection had changed, I was told that it had not.
I have started to receive a number of answers from the two Departments stating that the data are not held in the requested format. How can the Department of Health possibly defend avoiding answering these questions and withholding vital information it clearly has access to?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. My response is as follows. First, as has been said on innumerable occasions, there is a responsibility on Ministers to provide answers to parliamentary questions that are both timely and substantive. I cannot comment on the question of whether the material the hon. Lady sought is held in the form she had in mind, but the central point is that Ministers are supposed to attend to both the letter and the spirit of the inquiry from an hon. Member, and to seek to accommodate that Member by providing, as I have said, a timely and substantive response.
Secondly, over a period of years, as Members on both sides of the House will be keenly conscious, it has become commonplace for the record of individual Government Departments on these matters to be published. It seems to me to show very considerable discredit on the part of a Government Department persistently to fail, in a timely and substantive way, to respond to hon. Members’ questions. The hon. Lady’s point of order will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.
The Leader of the House has traditionally seen it as part of his or her duty to persuade Ministers to up their game in these matters. My clear understanding is that the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) recognises his   responsibility in these matters. I hope it will not be necessary for this matter to be raised continually on the Floor of the House. An improvement is required.
My final observation is that if this problem persists I urge the hon. Lady to write to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Procedure Committee, who, on behalf of the House, will, I think, be only too happy to chase progress in this matter.
If I may, perhaps on behalf of the House, I would like to offer good wishes to the hon. Lady for her own health and progress in the next few days. We all wish her well and we look forward to seeing her return to her place in due course. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Caroline Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that, for the past two years, Members of this House have been in correspondence with the trustees of the parliamentary pension fund, raising concerns about its investment approach, especially on the long-term financial risks associated with fossil fuel assets, as well as on the fund becoming more transparent and open with Members and former Members of this House. In its 2016 annual report, published just last week, we learned that the fund invested in tobacco, fossil fuels and large-scale tax avoidance, raising a reputational risk for Parliament.
Mr Speaker, can you clarify what MPs might do, using proper procedure, to take this matter forward with the trustees who have so far refused to meet Members? Might you also help to allay the concerns of many Members, perhaps through the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that the pension fund is leaving this House open to reputational damage and legal challenge?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for notice of what I hope she will forgive me as describing as her attempted point of order. Unfortunately, the fact of that notice, which is extremely courteous of her, does not of itself convert the attempt into an actual point of order. However, I do not in any sense mean to be dismissive. This is a very important matter, even if it is not principally a matter for the Chair. The Chair has, frankly, no responsibility for the parliamentary contributory pension fund, let alone the investment policies its trustees pursue. That said, I acknowledge that the hon. Lady and all colleagues, as well as retired Members, have a legitimate interest in this subject. They are, as she indicates, properly pursued with the trustees. I am sure the ever-alert secretariat of the fund will be reading our proceedings—they certainly should be.
My concluding observation for the hon. Lady is that although there is no ministerial responsibility for this matter, she might wish to bear in mind the interest of the Leader of the House in the subject. I was somewhat perturbed to hear the hon. Lady say that her pursuit of meetings has so far been unsuccessful. I have come to know the hon. Lady over the past seven years and she is, in the very best sense of the term, an extremely persistent Member. People who think that if they for ever and a day refuse to meet the hon. Lady she will go away and drop her point of concern are probably guilty of a triumph of optimism over reality.

CHILDREN AND SOCIAL WORK BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Ordered,
That the Order of 5 December 2016 (Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken as shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.
(3) Each part of the proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on the day on which those proceedings are commenced, at the time specified in relation to it in the second column of the Table.

  

(4) Proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Edward Timpson.)

CHILDREN AND SOCIAL WORK BILL [LORDS]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
New Clause 15

Education relating to relationships and sex

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring—
(a) relationships education to be provided to pupils of compulsory school age receiving primary education at schools in England;
(2) The regulations must include provision—
(a) requiring the Secretary of State to give guidance to proprietors of schools in relation to the provision of the education and to review the guidance from time to time;
(b) requiring proprietors of schools to have regard to the guidance;
(c) requiring proprietors of schools to make statements of policy in relation to the education to be provided, and to make the statements available to parents or other persons;
(3) The regulations must provide that guidance given by virtue of subsection (2)(a) is to be given with a view to ensuring that when relationships education or relationships and sex education is given—
(a) the pupils learn about—
(i) safety in forming and maintaining relationships,
(ii) the characteristics of healthy relationships, and
(iii) how relationships may affect physical and mental health and well-being, and
(b) the education is appropriate having regard to the age and the religious background of the pupils.
(4) The regulations may make further provision in connection with the provision of relationships education, or relationships and sex education.
(5) Before making the regulations, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) The regulations may amend any provision (including provision conferring powers) that is made by or under—
(a) section 342 of the Education Act 1996;
(b) Chapter4 of Part 5 of the Education Act 1996;
(c) Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996;
(d) Part 6 of the Education Act 2002;
(e) Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008;
(f) the Academies Act 2010.
(7) Any duty to make provision by regulations under subsection (1) may be discharged by making that provision by regulations under another Act, so long as the Secretary of State consults such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate before making the regulations under that Act.
(8) The provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (1) by virtue of section 70 includes, in particular, provision amending, repealing or revoking any provision made by or under any Act or any other instrument or document (whenever passed or made).
(9) Regulations under subsection (1) which amend provision made by or under an Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(10) Other regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
(11) Expressions used in this section, where listed in the left-hand column of the table in section 580 of the Education Act 1996, are to be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of that Act listed in the right-hand column in relation to those expressions.”—(Edward Timpson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring relationships education to be taught in primary schools in England and requiring relationships and sex education to be taught in secondary schools in England. The duties would apply in relation to Academy schools and independent schools as well as maintained schools.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Timpson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

John Bercow: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (b) to new clause 15, in subsection (2), leave out “from time to time” and insert
“at least once in every three year period”.
Amendment (a) to new clause 15, in subsection (2), leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
“(d) to allow a parent of any pupil receiving relationships education or relationships and sex education to request that the pupil be wholly or partly excused from receiving that education and for the pupil to be so excused.”
Amendment (c) to new clause 15, in subsection (2), at end insert—
“(e) about arrangements for inspecting the quality of teaching of relationships and sex education at schools in England.”
Amendment (d) to new clause 15, in subsection (4), at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must review the regulations at least three years after they come into force and once in every three year period thereafter.”
Amendment (e), to new clause 15 in subsection (4), at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must review the regulations from time to time.”
Government new clause 16—Other personal, social, health and economic education.
New clause 1—Safeguarding: provision of personal, social and health education—
“(1) For the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children a local authority in England must ensure that pupils educated in their area receive appropriate personal, social and health education.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “personal, social and health education” must include but shall not be restricted to—
(a) sex and relationships education,
(b) same-sex relationships,
(c) sexual consent,
(d) sexual violence,
(e) online and offline personal safety, and
(f) domestic violence and forms of abuse.
(3) Targeted inspections carried out by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) under section 136 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 shall include an assessment of the provision of personal, social and health education under subsection (1), including whether the information provided to pupils is—
(a) accurate and balanced,
(b) age-appropriate,
(c) inclusive,
(d) factual, and
(e) religiously diverse.
(4) Assessments made under subsection (3) must include an evaluation of any arrangements for pupils of sufficient maturity to request to be wholly or partly excused from participating in personal, social and health education.
(5) For the purpose of subsection (4) “sufficient maturity” shall be defined in guidance by the Secretary of State.
(6) Withdrawal from personal, social and health education by pupils under subsection (4) shall not be considered a breach of the safeguarding duties of a local authority.
(7) This section comes into force at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 3—Sibling contact for looked after children—
“(1) In section 34(1) of the Children Act 1989, after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).”
(2) In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, after paragraph (c) insert—
“(d) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).””
This new clause would ensure that children in care are allowed reasonable contact with their siblings.
New clause 4—Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain—
“(1) Schedule (Placing children in secure accommodation elsewhere in Great Britain) ends at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would revoke provisions in the Bill that enable local authorities in England and Wales to place children in secure accommodation in Scotland, and vice versa, two years after the Act comes into force.
New clause 7—Post-removal counselling for parents and legal guardians who are themselves looked after children or care leavers—
“Where a child is permanently removed from the care of a birth parent or a guardian further to any order made pursuant to—
(a) section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision orders),
(b) section 22 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (placement orders),
(c) section 46 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (adoption orders), or
(d) section 14A of the Children Act 1989 (special guardianship order)
a local authority must, so far as is reasonably practicable, provide a counselling service and commission specialist therapeutic support for the parent or guardian where—
(i) the parent or guardian is a looked after child, or
(ii) the parent or guardian is a care leaver.”
This new clause would provide post-removal support for parents who are themselves a looked after child or care leaver.
New clause 8—Former relevant children: provision of sufficient suitable accommodation—
“In the Children Act 1989, after section 23C insert—
“23CA Duty on local authorities to secure sufficient accommodation for former relevant children
(1) It is the duty of a local authority to take reasonable steps to secure sufficient suitable accommodation (whether or not provided by them) within their area to meet the needs of former relevant children, where “former relevant children” has the same meaning as in section 23C(1) of this Act.
(2) In taking steps to secure the outcome in subsection (1), the local authority must—
(a) produce, and make available to all former relevant children, information about the providers of accommodation and the types of accommodation they provide,
(b) be aware of the current and expected future demand for such accommodation and consider how providers might meet that demand, and
(c) have regard to—
(i) the need to ensure the sustainability of the housing market, and
(ii) the need to encourage providers to innovate and continuously improve the quality of such accommodation and the efficiency and effectiveness with which it is provided.””
Local authorities already have a duty to ensure that sufficient accommodation is available for looked after children in their area. This new clause would introduce a similar duty on local authorities to ensure sufficient, suitable accommodation is made available for all care leavers up the age of 21.
New clause 10—Benefit sanctions for care leavers—
“(1) The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 102(2)—
(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;
(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2(7) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and is under the age of 25”;
(b) in regulation 103(2)—
(i) in paragraph (a) after “18 or over” insert “and paragraph (b) does not apply”;
(ii) in paragraph (b) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2(7) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and is under the age of 25”;
(c) in regulation 104(2) after “18 or over” insert “and section (3) does not apply”.
(d) in regulation 104(3) after “16 or 17” insert “or is a care leaver within the meaning given by section 2(7) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 and is under the age of 25.””
This new clause will ensure that the maximum sanction for a care leaver under the age of 25 can be no more than four weeks whilst under the age of 25, in line with 16 and 17 year olds.
New clause 11—National offer for care leavers—
“(1) The table in regulation 36 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 is amended as follows—
(a) in column one after “single claimant aged 25 or over” insert—
“or former relevant child as defined under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 aged under 25”
(b) in column one after “joint claimants where either is aged 25 or over” insert—
“or either are a former relevant child as defined under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 aged under 25”
(2) The Secretary of State will make provisions for bursaries to be available to all care leavers, who are undertaking their first year of a statutory apprenticeship, as defined in the Enterprise Act 2016 (the “care leaver apprenticeship bursary”)—
(a) in this section “care leavers” has the same meaning as section 2(7) of this Act.
(b) The bursary will be administered by local authorities on behalf of the Secretary of State in line with their corporate parenting responsibilities defined in section 1 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017.
(c) The value of the bursary will be of equivalent value to the Higher Education Bursary outlined in The Children Act 1989 (Higher Education Bursary) (England) Regulations 2009.
(d) Bursaries under this section will be disregarded for the purposes of calculating a claimant’s Universal Credit entitlements.
(3) The Housing Benefit Regulations 2009 are amended as follows—
(a) in regulation 2, in the definition of “young individual”, in each of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), for “22 years” substitute “25 years”.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
The National Offer will uprate the financial support available to care leavers under the age of 25 by: (1) extending the over 25 rate of standard allowance of Universal Credit to all care leavers under the age of 25; (2) placing a duty on the Secretary of State to make provisions for all care leavers under the age of 25 and in the first year of an apprenticeship to be paid a £2,000 bursary, which will be distributed by local authorities on her behalf; and (3) delaying the transition onto the Shared Accommodation rate of Local Housing Allowance until the age of 25.
New clause 12—Duty to maintain and report a local safeguarding and welfare capacity register—
“After section 16(E) of the Children Act 2004 (inserted by section 16 of this Act) insert—
“Duty to maintain and report a local safeguarding and welfare capacity register
(1) The safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must assess, and maintain a register of, capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the area.
(2) The assessment must include, but shall not be restricted to, an assessment of the number of additional children, including unaccompanied refugee children, that could be fully supported by children’s social care services in the area.
(3) At least once in every twelve month period—
(a) the safeguarding partners must report the capacity assessment for that period to the Secretary of State, and
(b) the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a single report setting out the information provided under paragraph (a) and any relevant information that may be provided by the devolved administrations.””
This new clause would require local safeguarding partners to assess their capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. This assessment must include the number of additional children the area could support, including unaccompanied refugee children. Local safeguarding partners would be required to report this information to the Secretary of State annually, who in turn would publish and lay before Parliament a single report, which may include any relevant information received from the devolved administrations.
New clause 13—Strategy for safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children—
“(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must develop and publish a strategy for  the safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children living in the United Kingdom (“the strategy”).
(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the progress of the strategy’s development at least once in every four week period prior to publication of the strategy.
(3) The strategy must include, but shall not be restricted to—
(a) information clarifying the roles and responsibilities towards unaccompanied refugee children of any public agency the Secretary of State considers relevant, including in particular—
(i) the European Asylum Support Office,
(ii) local government service providers, and
(iii) the Children’s Commissioner;
(b) information clarifying how safeguarding practices should differ for those children covered by the strategy who—
(i) have family members in the United Kingdom, and
(ii) do not have family members in the United Kingdom; and
(c) recommendations on how to ensure full cost reimbursement to public agencies required to provide services under the strategy.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop and publish a strategy for safeguarding unaccompanied refugee children.
Amendment (a) to new clause 13, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must consult with devolved administrations before publishing the strategy.”
New clause 14—Local arrangements for reporting on capacity to provide children’s safeguarding and welfare services—
“After section 16E of the Children Act 2004 (inserted by section 16 of this Act) insert—
“Local arrangements for reporting on capacity to provide children’s safeguarding and welfare provision services
(1) At least once in every 12 month period, the safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must report to the Secretary of State on their capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
(2) The report must include, but shall not be restricted to, identification of capacity to provide safeguarding and welfare services to children who could be resettled in the area, including unaccompanied refugee children who could be transferred to the area from abroad including those with existing or current applications for transfer.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the information received under subsection (1) in a single report.””
This new clause would require the local safeguarding partners in an area to report annually to the Secretary of State on what capacity they have to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in that area. This includes what capacity they have to resettle children, including unaccompanied refugee children, in the area. The Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament the information received from local authorities in a single report.
Amendment (a) to new clause 14, after “(1)” insert—
“and any relevant information that may be provided by the devolved administrations”.
New clause 20—Review of access to education for care leavers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an annual review on access for care leavers to—
(a) apprenticeships,
(b) further education, and
(c) higher education.
(2) The first review must take place by the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) A report produced following a review under subsection (1) must include, in particular, an assessment of the impact on care leavers’ access to education of—
(a) fee waivers,
(b) grants, and
(c) reduced costs of accommodation.
The report must be made publicly available.”
Amendment 12, in clause 12,page10,line30, at end insert—
“(3A) At least one member of the panel appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) must—
(a) be independent from Government, and
(b) have relevant specialist expertise in tackling domestic abuse.”
This amendment would require that at least one member of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has specialist expertise in tackling domestic abuse.
Amendment 1, in clause 16,page13,line34, at end insert—
“, including unaccompanied refugee children once placed in the area, and unaccompanied refugee children who have been identified for resettlement in the area.”
Amendment 3,page13,line34, at end insert—
“(1A) The safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must conduct and publish a review of the steps taken by that local authority to safeguard and promote the welfare of children since 1 June 2010, including an assessment of the impact of Government policies since that date.
(1B) The Government policies to be considered under subsection (1A) are those deemed by the safeguarding partners to be relevant to the safeguarding and welfare of children.”
This amendment would require the safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England to conduct a review of steps they have taken to safeguard and promote the welfare of children since 1 June 2010, including an assessment of the impact of Government policies since that date.
Amendment 2, in clause 22,page17,line30, at end insert—
“(3) Guidance given by the Secretary of State in connection with functions conferred by section 16E in relation to unaccompanied refugee children must be developed in accordance with the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

Edward Timpson: I shall deal first with new clauses 15 and 16, which relate to relationships and sex education and personal, social, health and economic education. I shall then respond to key points raised in other new clauses and amendments. I shall ensure that they are covered within the time that is available under the now agreed programme motion, as I am conscious that many other Members wish to speak.
Many Members on both sides of the House have worked hard for some years to increase awareness of the issues to which new clauses 15 and 16 refer and the case for statutory underpinning of relationships and sex education and PSHE, and I thank them for their efforts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), along with the Chairs of the Health, Education, Home Affairs and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committees and the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), have been particularly strong supporters of that approach.
Relationships education, RSE and PSHE can help to ensure that pupils are given the knowledge and skills that they will need to stay safe and develop healthy, supportive relationships. That is particularly important when they are navigating the new challenges of growing up in an online world. Parents, of course, are the primary educators and guides of their children, and we should not forget that: they play a central role both in helping their children to grow up into successful adults and in protecting them from harm. However, parents are telling us that they want schools to help them to deal with what are complex and fast-moving issues to ensure that their children grow up equipped with the knowledge and skills that they need to be safe and successful. Our proposals to make these subjects compulsory are supported by professionals working in the field, by parents and carers, and, importantly, by children and young people themselves.

Caroline Lucas: I warmly welcome these vital and long overdue new clauses, but it would be helpful if the Minister could provide some reassurance that relationship education in primary schools will not exclude key age-appropriate information that relates to physical health, wellbeing, and the safety of children, because that is an area of concern that is still outstanding. I am thinking of, for instance, the difference between safe and unsafe touch, and the naming of body parts that are private.

Edward Timpson: I can reassure the hon. Lady that the whole purpose of bringing relationships education into primary schools is to start creating the all-important building blocks that will make children resilient enough to deal with the pressures and risks that the modern world throws at them. The new clauses are intended to allow a period after the Bill has gone through both Houses during which we can draw on the greatest possible level of expertise to establish how we should go about teaching these subjects in an age-appropriate way, so that by the time the children leave school they have all the knowledge and skills that they need to make good choices in their lives as they grow up.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Timpson: I will, but I should make it clear to Members that I do not want to curtail the opportunities for others to have their say, and I want to deal with other aspects of the Bill as well.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will remember what we discussed in those happy days when we served together on the Education Committee. It is all very well to have an obligation, and this is a real step forward, but the fact is that if we do not give the people in the schools real professional training, it will not work.

Edward Timpson: We served on that Committee such a while ago that it was then called the Children, Schools and Families Committee. In 2013, Ofsted acknowledged that the teaching of these subjects was still not as good as it should be. We shall be working with teachers and schools so that they understand how to develop their understanding of and ability to teach these subjects, so that there is consistency throughout the education system.

Caroline Spelman: Will the Minister include the Church of England in his list of organisations that support the Government’s proposals? Despite its support, the Church seeks reassurance that relationships education will be respectful of the ethos of the schools where it is taught.

Edward Timpson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that clear indication of the Church of England’s support for the step that we are taking. Having engaged with the Church and with representatives of other faiths throughout the process, I am aware of that support. The religious faith that brings many people into the education system will be respected as it has been in the past: that is reflected in the Bill, and will be reflected in the regulations and statutory guidance that will follow.

Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Timpson: I will give way briefly, but then I want to try to make some progress.

Julian Lewis: New clause 15 draws a distinction between relationships education provided for primary school children and relationships and sex education provided for secondary school children. Can the Minister confirm that that does not mean that sex education will be smuggled into primary schools under the label “relationships education”?

Edward Timpson: A clear distinction is drawn by the very name of each of those subjects. The new clause makes plain that sex education will not be a statutory part of primary school teaching. Of course, if primary schools choose to teach sex education in an age-appropriate way, as they can now, they will be able to do so, but the right to withdraw from that will still apply, as it does in secondary schools.

Daniel Poulter: rose—

Edward Timpson: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I must make some more progress.

Daniel Poulter: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State on new clause 15, which is long overdue, but may I ask a specific question about faith schools and other schools of that type? New clause 15(3)(b) states that it must be ensured that
“the education is appropriate having regard to the age and the religious background of the pupils.”
Will my hon. Friend confirm that that will not allow faith schools to avoid providing such education because they consider it to be inappropriate?

Edward Timpson: The education will become a statutory part of the curriculum, so schools will have to provide it. The duty and the power that we are creating will enable schools to teach the new subjects in an age-appropriate way that is commensurate with their religious faith and will best suit their pupils in the setting in which they happen to be, but what my hon. Friend has said is absolutely correct.

Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Timpson: I will, but I shall then impose a moratorium on any further interventions.

Gerald Howarth: Who will decide what is age-appropriate, and where is there any reference in any of these provisions to the moral dimension of this very important issue?

Edward Timpson: The moral aspect is already covered by British values and the teaching of citizenship, and that is in no way curtailed by these provisions. As for the question of what is age appropriate, the concept already exists in the current system. I repeat that the Bill will be underpinned by regulations and statutory guidance,  which will set out in more detail exactly how it will be translated into reality. That is a strong and consistent approach which we think will strike the right balance between enabling children to develop the resilience and skills that they need and ensuring that that is done in an age-appropriate way.
We know that many schools are already teaching these subjects, and that some are doing so very well, but we believe that it is right for us to do all we can both to provide universal coverage for all pupils and to improve quality. Given the increasing concerns about child sexual abuse and exploitation, and the increased risks associated with growing up in a digital world, there is a particularly compelling case for action in relation to pupil safety. New clause 15 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make relationships education in primary schools and relationships and sex education in secondary schools statutory by means of regulations. We believe that that is the right approach because it will allow us time to engage with a wide range of interests and expertise. The outcome of that engagement will feed into the legislative process for making these subjects statutory, as well as the guidance that will help schools to deliver high-quality, inclusive relationships education and RSE.
New clause 16 creates a regulation-making power to enable the Secretary of State to make PSHE statutory. We are aware that the most pressing safeguarding concerns relate to relationships and RSE, but it is evident that wider concerns about child safety and wellbeing relate to the life skills that the subject can cover, such as an understanding of the risks of drugs and alcohol and the need to safeguard physical and mental health. We therefore believe that it is important that we are able to make PSHE, or elements of it, statutory as well, and have the time to consider carefully the fit between the content of relationships education and RSE and what might be included in the PSHE curriculum. The work to consider content will begin this spring, and we expect that it will result in draft regulations and guidance for consultation this autumn. Following consultation, regulations will be laid in the House, alongside final draft guidance, allowing for full and considered debate, and we expect that statutory guidance will be published in early 2018, once the regulations have been passed and at least one full year before the academic year 2019-20.
We do not think it is right to specify in primary legislation the exact content of the subjects, as this would be too prescriptive and would remove freedom from schools and run the risk of the legislation quickly becoming out of date as the world changes ever more quickly. The Department’s external engagement will determine subject content, working with a wide range of experts and interested parties. We will ensure through careful review and consultation that our work results in a clear understanding about the full set of knowledge and skills that relationships education, RSE and PSHE should provide.
Our proposed legislation is also clear that subject content will be age appropriate. We expect the new subject of relationships education for primary schools to focus on themes such as friendships, different types of family relationships, bullying, and respect for other people. We see this as vitally important in laying the foundations for RSE at secondary school.
Across relationships education and RSE, we expect to cover in an age-appropriate way how to recognise and build healthy relationships, and how they affect health and wellbeing and safety online. This can include dealing with strangers, respect, bullying and peer pressure, commitment and tolerance, and appropriate boundaries. I want to emphasise again to hon. Members that our priority will be to ensure that content is always age appropriate. In RSE at secondary school, content would also include sex and sexual health, all set firmly within the context of healthy relationships. In relation to online issues, internet safety is a cross-Government agenda, so these plans are closely aligned to the internet safety Green Paper due later this year.
In addition to relationships education and RSE, we acknowledge that pupils need to access other key knowledge and skills for adult life, and those are generally covered in PSHE. For PSHE, we want to take the time to consult widely, as I said, on what the subject content could best look like, respecting what our engagement process determines as the right content for relationships education and RSE. We will be looking at what might be needed under the broad pillars of healthy bodies and lifestyles, healthy minds, economic wellbeing, and making a positive contribution to society. We would expect this to include issues such as keeping safe, puberty, drugs and alcohol education, mental health and resilience, and careers education.
Schools will, of course, continue to teach in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty. This means that schools can consider how best to teach subject content taking into account the age and religious backgrounds of their pupils and any other relevant factors, but not whether to teach the content.

Stella Creasy: Given that 45% of primary school children have experienced, or are aware of, homophobic bullying, can the Minister clarify how that fits into the curriculum at that age?

Edward Timpson: I have indicated that we expect bullying to be covered in primary school, and of course we have to cover all facets of bullying, as it comes in many forms. Of course, it will be a matter for the school to make sure that that is age appropriate, and it will start to put in place the building blocks of the development of that child’s understanding, ensuring that by the time they move on to secondary school they are well placed to move on to the next level of subject matter that they will need to understand.
Schools will need to ensure that RSE is inclusive and meets the needs of all young people.

Bernard Jenkin: I am yet another Select Committee Chair who very much welcomes this development and the courage with which the Government are putting it forward, but there is a point to be made about what is allowed to be taught in primary schools and the fact that children’s experiences start well before they leave primary school. They are learning about these things and asking questions about them long before they leave primary school, and there is nothing in this Bill that will prevent teachers from responding to curiosity and dealing with these issues as they arise in the normal course of any other part of their education.

Edward Timpson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s indication as a Select Committee Chair that he joins the club of Chairmen who support this important move. He is right that there is scope within these measures for schools to tailor their response to this subject matter in a way that best meets the needs of their pupils. There is already some excellent material available from the likes of the PSHE Association which sets out how they can do that in an age-appropriate way and in a way that meets the challenges that we know the modern world throws at children at an ever more tender age.
The regulations and guidance we produce will make very clear the expectation that schools will have the flexibility to teach subjects in accordance with their ethos and pupils’ religious backgrounds. The Secretary of State must give schools guidance on how to deliver this, and this provision enables faith schools to teach their subjects according to the tenets of their faith while still being consistent with the requirements of the Equality Act.
Archbishop Malcolm McMahon, chairman of the Catholic Education Service, said in support of these proposals:
“We welcome the Government’s commitment to improving Relationship and Sex Education in all schools. Catholic schools already teach age-appropriate Relationship and Sex Education in both primary and secondary schools.”
Nigel Genders, the Church of England’s chief education officer, said:
“With one million children being educated in Church of England schools, we are all too well aware of the pressing need to equip children for the world in which they are growing up. . . We therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to putting Relationships and Sex Education on a statutory footing.”
We have committed to retain a right to withdraw from sex education in RSE, because parents should have the right, if they wish, to teach sex education themselves in a way that is consistent with their values. We do not propose a right to withdraw from relationships education at primary level, because that will focus, as I said, on themes such as friendships, family relationships and dealing with strangers, not sex education.
Pupils will learn about the characteristics of healthy relationships that we can all agree on, such as respect, commitment, tolerance and proper boundaries. Knowing and understanding these characteristics, including how to build such healthy relationships, will help children be happy and, crucially, safe from others, such as in situations where they might try to exploit a lack of clarity about what is and is not acceptable.
Schools will continue to be required to publish policies on these subjects for parents, and statutory guidance will continue to set out that schools should consult parents on those policies to ensure they are feeding in their views. For those parents who still prefer to provide this education themselves, we absolutely intend to retain a right to withdraw from sex education. We will, as part of this, need to amend the current right to withdraw to make sure it remains in line with case law, and we will consult further in order to clarify the age at which a young person may have the right to make their own decisions about whether to withdraw from that aspect of their education or not. I want to assure Members that the outcome will be set out in regulations which will be subject to consultation and debate.
It is important to note that relationship and sex education falls within the scope of school inspection. Inspections will check to see that a school is providing the full statutory curriculum, and these issues can also be considered within the context of assessing the school’s leadership, the quality of teaching, pupil safety and pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Key elements are already covered in Ofsted’s school inspection handbook, and Her Majesty’s chief inspector will take full account of the new requirements in determining future school inspection arrangements. Ofsted is already seeking to appoint an HMI lead for citizenship and PSHE, whose role will be to keep abreast of developments in this area and oversee the training of inspectors in light of the new expectations on schools. Independent schools will also be held to account through inspectors reporting against the independent school standards.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister is making a strong case, but is he not asking us to enter into an incongruous position, as we do not yet know what the regulations will be in respect of relationship education, but at the same time he is asking the House to support removing the capacity of parents to remove their children from relationship education in primary schools? He is asking us to support something although we do not know the true details therein.

Edward Timpson: What I am asking the House to do is support these new clauses that maintain the right to withdraw from sex education that currently pertains, but the House will also have an opportunity under the regulatory process to scrutinise, and take part in addressing, what those regulations should look like and approve them or not, and I am sure my hon. Friend will want to play a part in doing just that.
We will commit to reviewing the statutory guidance on RSE within three years of its publication, and to a regular timetable after that, set out following our engagement process. This will help to ensure that it stays relevant as the world changes. We will also ensure that the regulations are regularly reviewed to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose. Specifying the timetable for review on the face of the Bill is not necessary as we are already under a public law duty to review the powers we take in legislation, but I can assure hon. Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), that the statutory guidance will make clear how regularly this guidance will be reviewed, balancing continuity for schools with the crucial need to keep content up to date.
I recognise the deep concern in the House about the safety and welfare of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children. I should emphasise, however, that my ministerial responsibility extends only to children who are in England. The new local safeguarding arrangements that will be established through the Bill will apply to England only. I accept that other jurisdictions ought to pay equal attention to the safeguarding of children who reside within their borders, and I accept that we should share details of our plans and best practice.
The Government have committed to publishing a safeguarding strategy for unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children by 1 May 2017 by virtue of the  written ministerial statement that I laid on 1 November last year. As part of this, we have been consulting local authorities about their capacity and we will set out plans to boost capacity for foster carers and supported lodgings in that strategy. We will continue to consult local authorities about their capacity to support unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children, to help us to identify those authorities that are most able to support unaccompanied children and those needing support through the national transfer scheme. To that end, we are happy to commit to updating Parliament annually on delivery against the safeguarding strategy and to publishing regular updates on the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children transferred to or resettled in the UK, by country of transfer.

Peter Bone: The Minister is making a powerful case. On that specific point, it is necessary to record not only how many children go into local authority care but how many are retained there and how much they keep in contact. If we put children into care and they are subsequently trafficked, we are not protecting them.

Edward Timpson: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we have worked hard to try to improve how we manage, understand and curtail the number of children who go missing while in care. Some of them have come from overseas, including France, and many are from our own country. We should use the Bill as an opportunity to improve the data so that we have as contemporaneous a picture as possible of where those children are, not only to inform us of the capacity in the system but to allow us to help them better.

Mark Harper: It has occurred to me as the Minister has been talking that we already have 3,000 or so unaccompanied asylum-seeking children coming to the United Kingdom, and that the burden of caring for those children is falling disproportionately on a few local authorities. Is he planning to say a little bit about how the information that he will publish on local authorities throughout the country will help the national transfer scheme to operate to enable that burden to be more fairly distributed across our constituencies?

Edward Timpson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He touches on a key part of how we can improve the system through the national transfer scheme. We know that Kent and Croydon in particular have taken a disproportionate number of children, and we have been working with local authorities to find a better way of ensuring that we find a safe, stable home for them while more effectively starting to spread them across the country.
In making the commitment I have just given, it is important to note that local areas already have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children.

Yvette Cooper: It is welcome that the Minister will publish information on each local authority. Will he publish the   number that each one will be prepared to take from abroad, including from Europe? That is the content of new clause 14, which refers to
“unaccompanied refugee children who could be transferred to the area from abroad”.
Does this also mean that the Government will continue to take children under the Dubs scheme after the 350 that they have specified? Yes or no?

Edward Timpson: The Home Secretary has set out the Government’s position in relation to the Dubs scheme. What we are trying to do is look at the overall capacity within local authorities, not just for specific groups of children but for all children, whatever route they have used to come into England and across the United Kingdom. Yesterday, I sent the first quarterly update on progress on the development of the strategy to all the UK children’s commissioners. Last Friday, the Department published for consultation draft statutory guidance for local authorities on the care of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and trafficked children. I believe that these actions demonstrate our continued commitment to those children, and we want to carry on working with local authorities and all those who work with them to ensure that we can give every child who comes to these shores a safe and stable home.

Heidi Allen: Building on the question from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I appreciate that my hon. Friend is an Education Minister, but will he consider extending the safeguarding strategy—which sounds very attractive, as does the regular consultation with local authorities, which should be available to Parliament—beyond the Syrian region, beyond children arriving on trucks and beyond children who are already in the UK care system? Would he consider extending these services to children coming from Europe?

Edward Timpson: We have made it clear how, through the national transfer scheme, we want to ensure that we help the children we have identified as requiring help the most, including those who fall out of the Dublin scheme. We are trying to understand exactly what the capacity is in the system. I am not in a position to say any more than the Home Secretary has already said about the Government’s commitments, but we have clearly made a strong commitment to utilising any latent capacity in local authority children’s services so that we do not miss an opportunity to help the children who need it.

Hywel Williams: Would the Minister accept that many local authorities in Wales are anxious to play their part in helping refugees, and indeed have been doing so for a number of years? They include Plaid Cymru-led Ceredigion. It is important that the Government is aware of the capacity that exists outside the usually recognised areas.

Edward Timpson: My understanding is that Wales took part in the consultation and, as I said a few moments ago, I have written to the Children’s Commissioner for Wales to update her on the progress we are making. Of course we want to work with local authorities to ensure that as many children as possible can benefit, through our combined efforts.

John Pugh: I welcome what the Minister is saying, but I am struggling to find anything in it that is inconsistent with new clause 14. Can he point it out to me?

Edward Timpson: The hon. Gentleman is going to have to be more specific about what his objection is. I would be happy to take it up with him at another time, but I am not in a position to answer a question that has not been formulated in a way that allows me to provide an answer.
I want to turn briefly to the question of sibling contact for looked-after children. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) is not here today, and I am sure that the whole House will send her their best wishes. We both agree that allowing reasonable contact between looked-after children and their siblings is absolutely right, where that is in the best interests of the children involved. This is reflected in the current law. However, the hon. Lady has helpfully pointed out an anomaly in the current legislation whereby the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 provide for sibling contact with a sibling who is also looked after but do not refer to contact with siblings who are not looked after. I will therefore ask my officials to start the work needed to amend the regulations to address that question, and I will happily keep the hon. Lady informed of progress.
Finally, I should like to mention the support provided to care leavers who have their own children removed from them. Hon. Members are right to emphasise how important it is to support young parents who have had a child taken into care. They need the right kind of intervention to help them to cope with this challenging situation so that they can be effective parents to any children they might have in the future. Statutory guidance is already clear about the arrangements that must be followed to ensure that the needs of children in care and care leavers are assessed and that appropriate support is put in place. The statutory guidance includes the need for comprehensive assessment of a young person’s needs in relation to their emotional and mental health, including whether they need access to specialist health and therapeutic services. So, given the existing statutory guidance, I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to incorporate the proposed new clause into the Bill. I do, however, understand the importance of the issue, and I can confirm that I will ensure that the statutory guidance is strengthened to make clear the importance of providing appropriate support in the specific circumstances when a looked-after child or care leaver has a child of their own taken into care.

Frank Field: I have never seen the House so crowded to discuss amendments, which shows the importance that we attach to the Bill. I fear that we may not get to my amendment about the welfare of all children, so may I come and talk to the Minister at some point? It deals with compelling local authorities to carry out an audit of all their policies and of Government policies on the welfare of children.

Edward Timpson: I am happy to commit to meet the right hon. Gentleman to see what we can do on that.

David Burrowes: I appreciate the Minister’s comments on new clause 7, which has cross-party support. There is welcome investment  from the Department in Pause and other programmes that provide support to vulnerable young women, but I want to check that the statutory guidance will ensure that such schemes get further cover. Those who have lost a child and are at risk due to vulnerabilities need therapeutic care support, so will this extra statutory guidance ensure that they get it?

Edward Timpson: I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We want to ensure that every care leaver, whatever their circumstances, gets the support that they need. That particular group is often very vulnerable, and we must respond to that in the best possible way.
I am grateful to hon. Members for raising important issues, and I look forward to hearing more from them during the debate. If I get the opportunity at the end—I fear I will not—I will respond more fully, but I am always open for business if anyone wants to speak to me after the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Before I call the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), I will point out what is demonstrably obvious: more than 10 Members wish to speak. The programme motion that the House has passed—it is not a matter for the Chair—is extremely tight, but I want Back Benchers to be heard. The Minister has set out the Government’s position and the hon. Lady will set out the Opposition’s position, but Back Benchers must be heard.

Angela Rayner: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me reiterate that point and say how disappointing it is that the Government have allocated just 90 minutes to discuss all the issues relating to the welfare of the most vulnerable children, particularly when Back Benchers on both sides of the House contributed so much to the Bill.

Edward Timpson: I am sorry to have to rise again, Mr Speaker, but I should point out that the programme motion was agreed across the House, so it should not be a surprise to the Opposition.

Angela Rayner: I thank the Minister for that point, but there was dialogue about that before we came to the House, so he knows exactly where we stand.
I thank the Minister for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). She cannot be here today because she is on compassionate leave, but she put in a tremendous amount of work to take the Bill through the Committee. I will try to be brief and will put a limit on the interventions that I take.
First, and most importantly, I want to make it clear that we will support new clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen). My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and I were happy to add our names to it and will add our votes to any Division on it. It is similar to our new clause 12, so I would like the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire to clarify whether “capacity” in her amendment has the same intention as it does in ours: an assessment of the  extra numbers that a council would take. New clause 13 complements those new clauses by ensuring that the Minister reflects those numbers in the national strategy. The Government have committed to provide that, but new clause 13 puts it on a statutory footing. It also provides for progress updates in the meantime, and I understand that some of those who should have received quarterly updates from the Government are yet to receive them. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the new clause, I hope that he will commit to come back with an update. However, I reserve my right to press our amendments to a vote if the Minister does not address those concerns.
Given the time available, I will not rehearse the issues at length, but I echo the points made in recent days by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I hope that we will hear from them in today’s debate. Our care for child refugees says something about us as a country. I hope that we take a lead from the example set in the debate in the other place and can hold our heads up high at the end of today.
I turn now to our amendments about vulnerable children already in our care, who should not be overlooked in this debate. New clause 3 requires local authorities to allow children in care reasonable contact with their siblings, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to future dialogue on that. New clause 4 has arisen because, quite simply, we have been sending our most vulnerable looked after children to Scotland due to the lack of specialist provision closer to their homes, families, schools, and local services. New clause 4 gives Ministers two years to sort out secure accommodation in England and Wales, so that any future secure placements in Scotland are made through choice, not constraint.
Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 was changed in Committee so that children looked after by English or Welsh local authorities can be detained in secure accommodation in Scotland. As the Minister said, that was a recognition that it is already happening. Vulnerable children are being sent to a different country, with different legal and education systems, because we have failed to provide for them close to their homes and communities. Changes in Committee also removed the requirement to obtain the consent of the parents and the child. Is it right not to get a child’s consent before they are moved to Scotland? They will also lose their right to independent periodic review, and I am yet to hear a convincing argument from the Minister as to why. The High Court suggested a joint review by the Law Commission, which would surely be better than a fix behind closed doors, and I hope the Minister will consider it.
We offer our support to the hon. Members on both sides who tabled new clause 7, a version of which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields tabled in Committee. I hope the Minister will indicate that he will take up the issue through statutory guidance if he cannot accept the new clause.
New clause 8 would establish a clear statutory duty on local authorities to secure sufficient, suitable accommodation for all care leavers up to age 21. I am sure that I do not need to tell the Minister why that is  important, but Government figures show that too many care leavers are in unsuitable or unknown accommodation. All of us who are parents of young adults are aware of the modern challenges they face and of the fact that they need support beyond their teenage years. In Committee, the Minister referred to the care leavers accommodation and support framework developed by Barnardo’s and St Basil’s, but funding for that ends next month. He referred to care leavers as a priority group for social housing, but that is not the same as a legal duty and does not mean that it happens in practice. If he cannot accept new clause 8, perhaps he will agree to meet to discuss how we can achieve its basic aim.
New clause 10 seeks to reduce to four weeks the maximum level of sanctioning for care leavers on universal credit. The Minister will be aware of the shockingly high rate of sanctioning experienced by care leavers and will know that care leavers are three times more likely to receive a sanction than a member of the general population. They are also less likely to challenge sanctions, but they are more likely to have them overturned. When a care leaver sits down with a work coach for the first time, will the Minster tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that their status is known and that they are treated accordingly? The Children’s Society told me that they worked with a care leaver who was sanctioned over Christmas and had to choose between feeding himself or his pregnant girlfriend. That is not the behaviour of a good corporate parent, and I hope we can hear more about what the Minister will do about that.
In line with other elements of the Bill, new clause 11 seeks to promote the financial stability of care leavers up to the age of 25. It would support care leavers into work and apprenticeships and would protect their finances when living in private rented accommodation. Young people under the age of 25 receive a lower rate of universal credit, but care leavers tend to take on more responsibility earlier. New clause 11 would extend the higher rate to care leavers under the age of 25. At about £780 a year, the difference for a low income individual would be significant. Care leavers will receive a £2,000 bursary when entering higher education, but they are not entitled to an equivalent when engaging in apprenticeships. Given the Government’s emphasis on skills, I hope they will consider such a measure.
Care leavers in private rented accommodation also experience a cut of some £50 a week to their housing benefit when they turn 22. The Minister has asked the Children’s Society for case studies, which it has provided to the Department. Perhaps the Minister could respond.
We estimate the cost of the new clause to be some £32.9 million, which is not a significant sum of money when we consider the ultimate cost to the state of failing properly to support care leavers. The Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to take responsibility for some of the financial difficulties experienced by care leavers, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
New clause 20 calls for an annual review of care leavers’ access to education and for the Government to produce a report of the impact of that access. If my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) presses her amendments to a vote, we will support her.
The Department’s own statistics show that only 6% of care leavers go to university, compared with 38% of all young people. Almost a third of children in care leave school with no GCSEs or GNVQs. That is not their  failure but ours. I urge everyone in the Chamber today to reflect on that. We are failing these children and young adults, and it is our duty to turn those numbers around.
Finally, one issue on which we can congratulate all concerned is the progress we have made on sex and relationships education. A great deal of work has gone into getting to this stage, for which I thank my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow, for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in whose names new clause 1 stands.
I also acknowledge the work of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). I will support the amendment that they and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) have tabled to new clause 15. I hope the Minister will be able to address the point without division, in either sense of the word.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Lady agree that, on the question of the right contained in new clause 15 for parents to withdraw their children from sex education lessons, we need to ask challenging questions on whether it can ever be right to deny a child their entitlement to vital education through good, age-appropriate information, not least because we know how important that is to keeping them safe?

Angela Rayner: I take on board the hon. Lady’s point. There has to be balance, and there has been considerable movement in that direction. I pay tribute to the Government for moving on that issue. Hopefully we can tease that out as we go through the finer details.
However, I seek clarification from the Minister on certain points of new clause 15. First, the coalition Government withdrew funding for the personal, social and health and economic education continuing professional development programme. That policy made it much more difficult for teachers to access the necessary training, thus lowering quality. Will the Government commit to any new resources for teacher training and continuing professional development in order to ensure that relationships and sex education provision is of high quality?
I reiterate the earlier contributions to this debate that, at first glance, there is no explicit mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues in new clause 15. We have evidence from Stonewall and others that excluding LGBT children and the issues they encounter daily from existing relationships and sex education has a damaging impact on their health, wellbeing and attainment at school. Do the Government commit to ensuring that the new statutory guidance is inclusive of LGBT issues in an age-appropriate way? Will the Government consult expert organisations in doing so?
We know that the nature of relationships and sex education will change, which means changes to statutory guidance.

Philip Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Rayner: The hon. Gentleman had loads of time to seek to intervene when the Minister was speaking.
Will the Government convene an expert group to ensure that, as the statutory guidance is updated, it covers the broad depth of topics required in RSE? Which organisations will be part of that group? On that issue at least, the House has spoken and the Government have listened. I urge the Government to do the same again on the other amendments before the House today. Many of the most vulnerable children depend on us, and we must not let them down.

Heidi Allen: I rise to speak to new clause 14, which is in my name. My interest in the Bill is born out of the refugee crisis sweeping across Europe. I am interested  in how the Bill might apply to safeguarding children in our care. The Government have a tremendous record in the Syria region, but, for me and for many in the House, there remains a big issue in Europe that has still not been addressed. How we safeguard children who might come to us from Europe is a matter close to all our hearts.
Let us get the elephant out there. For many of us, this debate is about the Dubs amendment and whether we can bring it back to life. The heart of the amendment is about consulting local authorities on their capacity. Why is that of interest to us? It specifically interests me because since the Government announced that the Dubs scheme would be closed, local authorities across the country have stepped forward to say that they can do more. If there is that capacity, we must have a safeguarding strategy and something that extracts such information from local authorities on a regular basis, rather than just once up to the end of this financial year. That is powerful information, and we must know it.
What I am interested to hear from the Minister, and I still have not heard it—this will affect how I feel about pressing new clause 14 to a vote—is to whom the safeguarding strategy, which is the subject of ongoing consultation with local authorities, will apply. Will it be children in Europe who may potentially come to us as refugees or asylum seekers? Is it just for children in Syria and the region, or is it just for those arriving under their own steam following dangerous but hard-fought journeys by truck and train?
This refugee crisis will not end neatly at the end of this financial year, so our ability to consult local authorities to understand their capacity must not end neatly at the end of this financial year, either. The timescale of the strategies we are debating today—for consulting local authorities and caring for children in our care and for unaccompanied children who come to us as refugees or asylum seekers—must be maintained over and beyond the end of this financial year.
I remind the House that Lewisham asked for 23 children but has so far been sent one. Bristol has been sent zero out of 10. Gloucestershire would like 10 but has been sent only two. Those small numbers add up. Small gestures of individual generosity collectively make us leaders.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend mentions my local authority, Gloucestershire, which I am pleased has been able to play a part in this process. What is her response to the point that the Minister made, and that I made to the Minister, about significant numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children already coming to the United  Kingdom? The burden of caring for those children falls disproportionately, so if councils such as Lewisham and others have some capacity, should they not be helping to support councils like Croydon and Kent that are bearing a significant burden? Importing yet more children is drawing more children to undertake dangerous journeys to Europe that may lead them to their death.

Heidi Allen: That is the strength of a decent consultation. I and many of us in this House believe that we can do both. The new clause allows us to spread the burden. It is tough, as some councils have borne a disproportionate burden of responsibility on their shoulders. Those councils have done amazingly, and it is time that other local authorities that have capacity share some of that burden. Guess what? If we consult as well as I think we can, I sense that we will find that we have capacity to manage both.

Tim Loughton: I declare my interest. My hon. Friend knows that I put my name to the amendment and that I support her. I do not want to get hung up on any particular scheme, Dubs or otherwise, because the Government have done an awful lot across many schemes, as the Home Affairs Committee has seen. Many authorities have come forward, and my concern is that we need to know exactly what capacity they realistically have to care for refugee children without there being a detriment to indigenous children, for whom there is a crisis in the number of foster care and residential children’s home places. The amendment might achieve that, whatever she might think.

Heidi Allen: Absolutely, and not least because of the refugee crisis. This is good housekeeping. It is good for us to have transparent data so that we can understand the capacity of our local authorities and our care system, which has to help children who are already in the UK care system.

Kelly Tolhurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities are already reviewing capacity on a week-by-week basis? That is evident in the number of referrals coming out of London to look after our own British children. Does she accept that local authorities do this every day of the week?

Heidi Allen: I do, absolutely. For me, this debate is born out of the fact that some local authorities have stepped forward and said they are struggling incredibly, while others have stepped forward and said they do have capacity. Somewhere, we are not joining those two conversations together. I know there is further capacity out there for the betterment of the children in care in the UK and the refugee children.

David Burrowes: What the Minister said from the Dispatch Box did not seem too far away from what new clause 14 is seeking, which is to ensure that we recognise  exactly what the capacity is for all children, including unaccompanied children. Is not the call for transparency the very call referred to in the Home Affairs  Committee report, in which the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner said he would welcome greater transparency? He was charged with the duty of going there independently to find the answer, and he wants transparency.

Heidi Allen: Absolutely. The fact that not only Members of this House but individuals such as the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner are asking for this tells me that we need to do it.

Caroline Spelman: Does my hon. Friend agree that capacity is constantly changing? In supporting the intention of the Dubs amendment, the Church of England made it clear that it would appeal for additional foster carers to come forward, not only for the children currently in the system but so that we could accommodate newcomers. If we are going to call for that, we have to provide the extra capacity that local authorities need.

Heidi Allen: Absolutely. I am so grateful for all the interventions, but I shall try to wrap up my speech.
The point is that the refugee crisis—indeed, the care crisis in our own country; we do not have enough foster carers—is an opportunity for us to do some decent housekeeping on the systems and to find out what capacity we have and where local authorities can step forward and do more. There is of course a debate to be had about funding. I know that some councils have said they are stretched, and the capacity conversation will draw out the argument about whether the funding is sufficient.
The majority of councils do not care where the children come from. I care that we take our fair share and help our neighbours in Europe, and I know that many other Members do, too. So that I am reassured by the Minister and do not press my new clause to a vote, I ask again: will the safeguarding strategy extend beyond the UK—that is, might it take into account refugees who may come here from Europe and further afield? Will the consultation results be made open to Parliament?

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Government’s measures on compulsory sex and relationship education, and pay tribute to those on both sides of the House who have campaigned for it at a time when we know that violence in teen relationships is increasing and teenagers are exposed to so much more than we were as children.
In the short time available, I wish to confine my remarks to new clause 14, following on from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen). Yesterday, the Home Affairs Committee published a report that was limited in its recommendations because it was an interim report. We called for the Government to clarify and publish local authorities’ capacity to take children, including those from Europe under the Dubs scheme, and their further capacity in the next financial year. We also called on the Government to seek the views of the Anti-slavery Commissioner before making any changes to the Dubs scheme or closing it.
We made those recommendations because of the evidence we heard. First, on council capacity, Ministers have said that councils had only 350 places to provide for children coming from Europe under the Dubs scheme. We heard from councils that said they had not been properly consulted; that many of them, including Hammersmith and Fulham, Lewisham, Birmingham and Bristol, had more capacity; and that they could potentially deliver thousands more places, if they were properly funded. That is why new clause 14 is so sensible.

Mark Harper: The right hon. Lady is leaping to a potential solution, but without thinking through the Government’s argument about why it would be a mistake. The whole point about providing capacity is that if one accepts the argument—I know she does not—that taking more children from Europe will mean that more will make dangerous journeys, on which many will die, it is fundamentally a mistake. She is leaping to a fundamentally mistaken solution to a very grave crisis.

Yvette Cooper: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but his view is rather different from the one taken by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, who was appointed by the Government to champion action against modern slavery. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Government for leading the way on a lot of work against modern slavery—they are right to do that—but the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner has described the Dubs scheme as a “safe and legal route” that has protected children who were being exploited. We have also heard from UNICEF that the
“cancellation of the Dubs scheme is a good win for people traffickers—there is money to be made, because children will try to get to their families or to places of safety one way or another.”
The point of the Dubs scheme was to prevent slavery. Surely the minimum the Government should do is to seek the further advice of the expert anti-slavery commissioner before they make any changes or close the scheme. If they want to persist in their view, they should at least test it against the evidence, not to mention listen to the many organisations and charities that have been arguing so strongly on the basis of the work they are doing with children and young people throughout Europe and other places who are at risk of being trafficked and being sucked into exploitation and sexual abuse. Children and teenagers have already come to Britain under the Dubs scheme who have been trafficked, sexually abused, raped and exploited. Now they are safe, thanks to Britain—thanks to the work that Britain has done as a result of the Dubs and Dublin schemes.

Peter Bone: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady. On that particular point, can she absolutely assure the House that the children we have taken into this country who have been trafficked have not been re-trafficked after coming here?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. He and I have both raised the need to ensure that once children are here they do not fall prey to the same trafficking gangs, which will sometimes go to children’s homes to seek them out. We know that, as a result of the Dubs scheme so far—in the mere six months for which it has been running—many children and teenagers are now safe with foster carers or in children’s homes. They are now back in school—somewhere they had often not been for years because of the exploitation, trafficking and abuse they have suffered.
We also know that, as we speak, there are in Greece more than 2,000 unaccompanied child refugees or those seeking asylum, only half of whom have places in children’s homes or foster care because the Greek system is overstretched. The Dubs scheme simply allows all countries to do their bit. It allows Britain to do its bit in a very small, modest way, given the scale of the refugee crisis. I pay tribute to the work done by Britain and the British Government on other aspects of the refugee  crisis, but the Dubs scheme is an important part of Britain being able to do its bits to help those who are most vulnerable of all—children.
Ministers have said they will continue to consult, but only as part of the national transfer scheme and, as I understand it, only for those children who have already arrived in the country. That is important, but it is not a substitute for also consulting on children who could come here under the Dubs scheme. It is not an either/or.

Kelly Tolhurst: In an immigration debate last year, I asked the right hon. Lady about the capacity of local authorities to come forward to help councils such as Kent to look after the significant numbers of unaccompanied asylum seekers that the council has had to look after over this period. Will she clarify that the point she is making is that there is a will to support children coming from Europe, but an unwillingness to support councils like Kent?

Yvette Cooper: No, I am saying the opposite—that we have to do both. Kent does need support from all over the country; so, too, do Hillingdon and Croydon. Some councils have done most to take the strain and to provide support. There has to be a national transfer scheme; I have supported it, when the Government have proposed it, every step of the way, and it needs to do more.
It is interesting that when the Select Committee took evidence, the Local Government Association told us that if there was further funding, councils throughout the country would be able to meet that 0.07% target set by the Government, and that that would allow councils to provide around 4,000 additional places. That is more than enough to take far more of the children who are currently being supported in Kent to other places across the country and to do our bit to help a small number of additional child refugees from Europe to prevent trafficking. The reason why the Government should focus on those coming from Europe as well as those who have arrived on their own is that if we provide help only to those who make the dangerous and illegal journey on lorries and trucks and often with traffickers and not to those who take the safe legal route, all we do is drive more people into the arms of the traffickers and on to the dangerous routes.
When the Calais camp was cleared in the autumn and the Dubs and the fast-track Dublin schemes were put in place, we were told that the number of children arriving via these very dangerous routes began to drop. Can the Government clarify whether those two schemes did in fact prevent some of those dangerous journeys and some of the challenges that Kent has faced?
Let me refer now to the spirit of the amendment. The Dubs amendment said not that we should consult on a national transfer scheme and then pretend that it is a Dubs scheme, but that we should consult specifically on the Dubs scheme. This is about enabling Britain to do its bit to prevent modern slavery, as the Prime Minister has rightly said that we should do. It is about supporting the Dubs scheme that was in place only for six months. It had huge cross-party support because, rightly,  we believed in Britain doing its bit and in supporting children who have described themselves as being traded like cattle and being sexually abused and raped.
Yesterday, President Trump reintroduced his travel ban and his Muslim ban which include stopping all refugees. For generations, the US has helped the persecuted, but now it has decided to stop doing so. We in Britain continually say, “We don’t do that; that is not us.” Let us now prove it by saying that we will carry on helping the most vulnerable, that we will carry on with the Dubs scheme and that we will carry on doing our bit, just as we have done for generations.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I decided to withdraw new clause 5, which had the support of 46 Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) and many others, because we feel very strongly that new clauses 15 and 16 do exactly what we wanted, which is to make statutory lessons available for all children in all schools. I applaud my hon. Friend the Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families, for everything that he has done to make that happen. He has demonstrated what can be achieved when there is a collaborative view in this House.
Three Select Committees have called for statutory lessons in this area, and that is a good way forward. Millions of children will benefit as a result of what my hon. Friend the Minister has announced today. High quality relationship and sex education can play an important part in preventing child sexual abuse and exploitation. It teaches children from an early age about fundamental issues such as consent, healthy relationships and how to have respect for themselves and their peer group. It is important that we put such lessons in place and that we do so right now. This call could not be more timely, especially in light of today’s BBC’s report about Facebook’s failure to remove illegal images of children from its social media platform. The whole House will deplore the fact that Facebook is failing in its duties.
Today’s amendments to this Bill will be an important first step in safeguarding our children, but the work cannot stop there. I urge the Minister to work with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that there is a statutory code in place for social media. We do not want to have a situation in which internationally known corporations such as Facebook can host illegal child abuse images, including those that explicitly focus on men with a sexual interest in children.

Julian Lewis: I am sure that almost all of us agree that sex education in secondary schools is a good thing, particularly as parents will still be guaranteed the right to withdraw their children. What one is concerned about is that parents will not have the right to withdraw their children from relationship education in primary school. What is there to prevent sex education aspects from being smuggled in under that label?

Maria Miller: I urge my right hon. Friend to talk to some of the teachers in his constituency who are already touching on issues of sex education in primary schools, because it is possible to do that in an age-appropriate manner. There is nothing in this Bill that would concern parents about further sex education being taught in primary schools—quite the contrary. According to research,  three quarters of all parents, if not a little more than that, welcome these measures. Perhaps it is because they understand the safeguarding issues that can be very well covered by relationship education, even at an early age. I am talking about issues around consent in particular. I hope that my right hon. Friend can support these measures, because they are important not only for the future development of our children, but for keeping them safe and for giving them the ability to call out for help if and when they need it.

Philip Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I make just a bit more progress? I do not want to fall foul of Mr Speaker.
I thank the Minister for responding to the amendments that I have tabled with the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I am talking about proposed amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) to Government new clause 15. I note the reference of my hon. Friend the Minister to a public law duty that obliges the Government to keep content in this area up to date. I can understand his argument, but it has not really worked so far, has it? It has taken about 17 years to get the guidance on sex and relationship education even on the agenda. Surely that public law duty on the Government has been there for the past decade and a half. None the less, I welcome his confirmation at the Dispatch Box, which will be recorded in Hansard, that he understands the intent behind proposed amendments (b) and (d) to undertake reviews every three years.
Governments of all complexions have, frankly, regularly sidestepped and ducked the issue of relationship and sex education, using a whole host of excuses to this House as to why it was not possible. What my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate and I have shown is that there is a cross-party desire to get this matter sorted and that the Government should not duck this issue from this point in.
In response to proposed amendment (c) to Government new clause 15 that relationship and sex education will be central to any assessment of schools, I am really reassured that there will be a lead in this area from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education. I am sure that the Minister with his infinite influence could encourage Ofsted to go a little further on this and to consider redoing its report that so clearly showed that a large proportion of schools were failing in their delivery of sex and relationship education as it currently stands. It would be good to show that that has changed, that progress is being made and that a further report could be done.
I would also welcome it if the Minister could reiterate the fact that newly drawn up regulations and guidance will be shaped by experts and not by prejudice or preconceptions in this area, and that there will also be support for expert teaching of the subject. Given the news headlines on Facebook today, perhaps he might consider a levy on social media organisations that flout common decency and standards, so that they can be held accountable and perhaps pay the bills for some of the problems that they create by allowing our children to be exposed to inappropriate material.

Ben Howlett: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Maria Miller: Will my hon. Friend forgive me if I do not? I can see that I am getting into trouble with the Speaker.
The Minister is right to resist amendment (a) to Government new clause 15; as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), it risks undermining important safeguarding for children in primary schools. The Minister is also right to resist new clause 1, which would not provide the sort of comprehensive relationship and sex education that I know he wants. For 17 years, Governments have sidestepped the issue. This Government should be applauded for the action that they are taking.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I would like to accommodate more colleagues, so extreme brevity would be hugely helpful.

Stella Creasy: In the light of your request for brevity, Mr Speaker, let me be clear that there is a common thread through my points and the amendments that I have tabled: inclusivity, which Members across the House probably support in principle, but in practice, the devil is in the detail of the amendments, and that is why I want to speak.
First, on sex and relationship education, I welcome the moves being made by the Government. It has taken seven years, but finally we will right the wrong whereby while composting and compound interest are on the curriculum, consent is not. I ask the Minister to look at the wording of new clause 1, its explicit reference to same-sex relationships, and the importance of being clear, during the consultation, that we will make sure that children are able to talk about every relationship that they have or may come across in life, and be taught to value them equally. That matters, because 95% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children say that they were not talked to at school about same-sex relationships. When that is so much part of the modern world, it is important that we include it in the modern training that we give our children.
Not least, I want to raise the concerns of teachers from Walthamstow, who said to me that they still live under the spectre of section 28 and the idea that there are things that they cannot talk to children about. The Minister knows my concern that use of the word “appropriate” in his legislation may raise that worry for teachers, so today I look for him to say explicitly that he expects same-sex relationships to be part of the curriculum; that he expects that when bullying is talked about in schools, homophobic bullying will be addressed, at both primary and secondary level; and that we will find a sensitive and religiously inclusive way to cover issues around same-sex relationships, in line with the Equality Act 2010. We should not trade off making progress on some areas of society—through bringing in an ability to talk about consent and domestic abuse—against not making progress on gay rights in other sections of our society. The Minister will point to the 1996 wording that the legislation echoes, but we had section 28 in 1996; this is 2017. Let us make sure that when we make progressive legislation, it is truly progressive.
It is important that we have inclusivity when it comes to child refugees. That is why I want to raise amendment 1 and speak in support of new clause 14 and amendment 2. In October, I asked the Prime Minister to tell us what had happened to the 178 children of whom her Government had been notified who would qualify, under the Dubs amendment, to come to our country but had gone missing from France. Six months on, I am still waiting for a response, but those 178 children are just a fraction of the 10,000 children who have been reported missing in Europe over the refugee crisis. Some 120,000 unaccompanied children—orphans—have come to Europe since 2015. The Dubs amendment is designed to help those children. We agreed as a House that we would do our bit for them, but what kind of a “bit” are we doing? We are talking about 350 children, which equates to 0.002% of all unaccompanied child refugees in Europe. When we debated Dubs, we talked about 3,000 children, which would be just 0.025% of them.
It is right that people should be concerned about what other countries are doing, and that we hold the French, Greeks and Italians accountable for their treatment of these children, but Turkey alone is taking 2.8 million Syrian refugees; how can we hold our heads high if we do not do our bit as well? The Dubs scheme is about us doing our bit.
New clause 14 is explicit about safeguarding the children who have applications for transfer—the children in the camps now. I agree with Members who talk about pull factors; the pull factor is safety. We are talking about Afghan children running from the Taliban, Sudanese children running from rape and murder, and Oromo children running from political persecution. They are pulled to our shore for safety. Closing the Dubs scheme will not stop that pull factor, but it will make the traffickers the most attractive proposition those children have. Crucially, amendment 1 and new clause 14 identify our responsibility for involvement in the safeguarding process; we should involve not just the Home Office but the Department for Education. That is where amendment 2 comes from.
How can we hold our heads high as a country when the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child repeatedly tells us that we are not doing our duty by asylum-seeking children and explicitly says that the Department for Education should play a stronger role with regard to them, and if we do not have agreement in law that the UN convention on the rights of the child covers not just children in this country, but every child we seek to safeguard, including those in camps who were identified in the statement made by the Minister in November? Without that agreement, we are creating a two-tier system for some of the most vulnerable children in the world. I ask Government Members, who I know share our concern to do the right thing by these children, to think about what it says about us as a country if we think that some children, who are not old enough to be accountable for the horrors in their country, are less worthy than others of our help.
Yes, this is messy; yes, it is difficult; and yes, times are tough, but Britain at its best has always stood up to the world, held its head high and said, “We will play our part.” The Dubs scheme was us playing our part. Closing it prematurely when our councils are saying that they  want to help, and when there are children who are safe in this country as a direct result of it, speaks ill of our character as a nation. I hope that Government Members will reflect on that, and will vote to send a strong message to the Government that we must help those children. Not helping them will not stop them coming; it will simply leave them rotting in the mud in Calais, Italy or Greece, still on all our consciences.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: We will hear from a few more contributors, I hope. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

Edward Leigh: I shall speak to my amendment (a) to new clause 15, which would give all parents a chance to withdraw their children from relationships education. As you know, Mr Speaker, there is already a right, long enshrined in our laws, for parents to withdraw children from sex education. I want to ask the Government why parents are to be allowed to continue to withdraw their children from sex education, but not from relationship education. It is an important point. The Supreme Court, in answer to the desire of the Scottish Government to impose itself between children and their families, ruled:
“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.”
Those of us who support the amendment believe that parents have the primary duty, and of course a desire, to bring up their children and educate them in their own values. The state should not impose its values on parents.
Frankly, the Government’s thinking on the matter is confused. Their policy statement says:
“We have committed to retain parents’ right to withdraw their child from sex education within RSE (other than sex education in the National Curriculum as part of science), as currently, but not from relationships education at primary. This is because parents should have the right to teach this themselves in a way which is consistent with their values.”
That document rightly justifies the right to withdrawal from sex education, but offers no justification whatever for the inconsistent and aberrant decision not to extend that right to relationships education.

Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Leigh: I must finish. If we respect the rights of parents over sex education, why trample all over their rights when it comes to relationships education? It is understandable that some will view this as a state takeover bid for parenting.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech with commendable succinctness, which allows me to call Angela Smith.

Angela Smith: I rise to speak on amendment 12, which is in my name. It seeks to ensure that the proposed child safeguarding practice review panel includes an independent domestic abuse expert.
The recent Women’s Aid report “Nineteen Child Homicides” outlined the depth of the challenge of child protection in families where one parent is abusive. It identified strong evidence that, when arrangements for  child contact are being made where there is a history of domestic violence, the current workings of the family justice system support a pro-contact approach, which can undermine the best interests of the child or children.
On average, only 1% of applications for contact are refused, but domestic abuse is identified as an issue in up to 70% of family proceedings cases. In three quarters of cases where courts have ordered contact with an abusive parent, the children have suffered further abuse. Clearly, therefore, significant safeguarding concerns result from the management of child contact arrangements. Indeed, the report I referred to highlighted the cases of 19 children in 12 families who were killed by perpetrators of domestic abuse in circumstances related to unsafe contact.
Research has identified a range of key lessons for the child protection system in relation to child contact in families where one parent is abusive. Those lessons are critical to the Bill’s aim of improving local safeguarding. In particular, understanding abusive partners’ coercive control of women and children is critical to improving child safeguarding.
On the proposed role of the child safeguarding practice review panel, my amendment would ensure that the concerns I have outlined are heard, by making sure the panel included at least one recognised independent specialist domestic abuse expert. In Committee, the Minister seemed to agree with that proposal when he stated that the panel would bring a more systematic and comprehensive approach to pulling together knowledge and understanding for cases involving an issue of national importance and relevance, and as far as I am concerned, domestic violence is an issue of national importance. By putting such an expert on the panel, the Government would also address their stated desire for it to provide social work practitioners with specialist advice and the best available research and evidence on domestic abuse and children.
I will push the issue to a vote if you allow me to, Mr Speaker, because the Government could act on it very easily and very quickly, and it would benefit women and children up and down the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I emphasise that I would like to call the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) from the Scottish National party as well, so extreme brevity is required.

Simon Hoare: I rise to speak in warm support of new clause 15 and to congratulate the Government. The Minister will remember that I served on the Public Bill Committee and spoke in support of the then new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I very much welcome the two safeguards in the new clause—on age-appropriateness and parental rights to withdraw—which I think address the points that have been raised.
This is a new clause—a 21st-century clause—for a 21st-century education system and for the world in which we live, and it reflects the deep need to provide our young people with the education and skills they  require to meet challenges that many of us on the Conservative Benches did not face when we were their age.
Many people rail against the rates of divorce, abortion, teenage pregnancy and the like, and I am absolutely convinced that there must be a causal link between those statistics and the very patchy and relatively poor levels of sex and relationship education we have had in this country hitherto.
The new clause appears to have garnered the support of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am a member, as well as of Barnardo’s, the Terrence Higgins Trust and others. I would therefore suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are clearly on to something and are approaching it in the right way.
We do nothing that could be described as moral if we leave our young people unprepared to meet the challenges of relationships and modern life. I certainly support the fact—I raised this in the Adjournment debate brought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—that the clause covers academies and free schools. Given the direction of travel in the education environment, that seems entirely appropriate, and I support the new clause.

Stuart McDonald: I wish to speak to the amendments in my name to new clauses 13 and 14. Let me say in passing that new clauses 12 and 11, on universal credit and local housing allowance, both have our full support. On new clause 4, while we sympathise with the sentiment behind it, the method of progression is not the correct one, and we could not give the new clause our support.
Let me turn to new clauses 12 to 14 and to my two amendments. New clause 13 would put the strategy for the safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children on a statutory footing, and that has our support. Given that many of the laws and services that will be involved are devolved, I have suggested that the new clause be amended to require consultation with the devolved Administrations before the strategy is published.
New clauses 12 and 14 require assessment of the capacity to provide safeguarding and welfare services, including to unaccompanied child refugees. I welcome the cross-party support new clause 14 has attracted, and the Scottish National party fully intends to give it our support. My small amendment to it simply borrows the wording of new clause 12 in relation to the devolved Administrations. It is appropriate to include the devolved Administrations, because, as we have heard, the key driver behind new clause 14 is to force the Government to rethink their move to wind the Dubs scheme down. This was a UK-wide scheme, and Scotland was and is absolutely willing to play its part in it.
With the rationale for closing Dubs falling to pieces, the Government have belatedly come to the Dispatch Box to make a concession. However, in making that concession, they have actually made the case for new clause 14, rather than giving an explanation of why we should reject it, so I see no reason why we should not proceed with it. If it comes to a vote, the SNP will absolutely support new clause 14, whether amended  or not.

David Burrowes: I rise to support many of the proposals, not least those in my name, which the Minister has supported from the Dispatch Box.
On new clause 7, statutory guidance will spread good practice, which is all too limited in relation to those who need therapeutic support, such as those who are at risk—not least those who have come from a care background—of repeat pregnancies. There is a duty of care in this Bill not only to children but to vulnerable adults, and I appreciate that that will now come within statutory guidance, so I will not need to press the new clause. However, I pay particular tribute to the Family Rights Group and the other organisations supporting it.
I very much support new clause 15, and our earlier new clauses 5 and 6 paved the way towards it. The thrust of it is very welcome. We should recognise the support from all sides of the argument. Previously, there was a stalemate, and we were looking simply at when we would make sex education compulsory. Now, we are focused on relationships and building the resilience in relationships that vulnerable children— particularly those who do not have any sight or sound of healthy relationships— do not have. I welcome that and the reassurance on age-appropriateness and the religious background of pupils.
The Government’s position on new clause 14 is welcome in focusing on safeguarding. This is not a re-run of Dubs or of those earlier arguments. This is about safeguarding. Whether we are talking about children in the UK or children coming from abroad, all children need safeguarding, and I welcome the commitment that has been made on that. However, as a result of this debate, the Government need to be more transparent about keeping the Dubs process open so that we can do all we can for children here and elsewhere.
One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 5 December and this day).
The Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
New clause 15 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
New Clause 16

Other personal, social, health and economic education

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring personal, social, health and economic education (beyond that required by virtue of section [Education relating to relationships and sex]) to be provided—
(a) to pupils of compulsory school age receiving primary education at schools in England;
(b) to pupils receiving secondary education at schools in England.
(2) The regulations may include—
(a) provision requiring the Secretary of State to give guidance to proprietors of schools in relation to the provision of the education;
(b) provision requiring proprietors of schools to have regard to that guidance;
(c) provision requiring proprietors of schools to make statements of policy in relation to the education to be provided, and to make the statements available to parents or other persons;
(d) further provision in connection with the provision of the education.
(3) Before making the regulations, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The regulations may amend any provision (including provision conferring powers) that is made by or under—
(a) section 342 of the Education Act 1996;
(b) Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Education Act 1996;
(c) Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996;
(d) Part 6 of the Education Act 2002;
(e) Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008;
(f) the Academies Act 2010.
(5) The provision that may be made by regulations under subsection (1) by virtue of section 70 includes, in particular, provision amending, repealing or revoking any provision made by or under any Act or any other instrument or document (whenever passed or made).
(6) Regulations under subsection (1) which amend provision made by or under an Act are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(7) Other regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
(8) Expressions used in this section, where listed in the left-hand column of the table in section 580 of the Education Act 1996, are to be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of that Act listed in the right-hand column in relation to those expressions.
(9) A power to make provision under this section does not limit any power to make provision of the same kind under another Act.”
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring personal, social, health and economic education to be provided at schools in England. The power could be exercised in relation to all schools, or just in relation to schools of a particular kind, for example Academy schools and maintained schools.—(Edward Timpson.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 14

Local arrangements for reporting on capacity to provide children’s safeguarding and welfare services

After section 16E of the Children Act 2004 (inserted by section 16 of this Act) insert—
“Local arrangements for reporting on capacity to provide children’s safeguarding and welfare provision services
‘(1) At least once in every 12 month period, the safeguarding partners for a local authority area in England must report to the Secretary of State on their capacity to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
(2) The report must include, but shall not be restricted to, identification of capacity to provide safeguarding and welfare services to children who could be resettled in the area, including unaccompanied refugee children who could be transferred to the area from abroad including those with existing or current applications for transfer.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the information received under subsection (1) in a single report.””
This new clause would require the local safeguarding partners in an area to report annually to the Secretary of State on what capacity they have to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in that area. This includes what capacity they have to resettle children, including unaccompanied refugee children, in the area. The Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament the information received from local authorities in a single report.—(Heidi Allen.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 267, Noes 287.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 12

Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel

Amendment proposed: 12,page10,line30, at end insert—
“(3A) At least one member of the panel appointed by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) must—
(a) be independent from Government, and
(b) have relevant specialist expertise in tackling domestic abuse.”—(Angela Smith.)
This amendment would require that at least one member of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel has specialist expertise in tackling domestic abuse.—(Angela Smith.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 271, Noes 299.

Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 32

Power to test different ways of working

Amendment made: 4,page20,line23, leave out clause 32.—(Edward Timpson.)
Clause 33

Duration

Amendment made: 5,page21,line33, leave out clause 33.—(Edward Timpson.)
Clause 34

Parliamentary procedure

Amendment made: 6,page22,line3, leave out clause 34.—(Edward Timpson.)
Clause 35

Consultation by local authority

Amendment made: 7,page22,line27, leave out clause 35.—(Edward Timpson.)
Clause 36

Consultation by Secretary of State

Amendment made: 8,page22,line36, leave out clause 36.—(Edward Timpson.)
Clause 37

Guidance

Amendment made: 9,page23,line16, leave out clause 37.—(Edward Timpson.)
Clause 38

Annual report

Amendment made: 10,page23,line31, leave out clause 38.—(Edward Timpson.)
Clause 39

Interpretation

Amendment made: 11,page23,line36, leave out clause 39.—(Edward Timpson.)
New Clause 17

Ensuring adequate provision of social work training

“(1) The Secretary of State may take such steps as the Secretary of State considers appropriate—
(a) to ensure that adequate provision is made for social work training, and
(2) The power under subsection (1) may, in particular, be used to provide financial or other assistance (subject to any conditions the Secretary of State thinks are appropriate)—
(a) for individuals resident in England to undertake social work training;
(b) for organisations providing social work training.
(3) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any person, or by employees of any person, authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.
(4) For the purpose of determining—
(a) the terms and effect of an authorisation under subsection (3), and
(b) the effect of so much of any contract made between the Secretary of State and the authorised person as relates to the exercise of the function,
Part 2 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 has effect as if the authorisation were given by virtue of an order under section 69 of that Act; and in subsection (3) “employee” has the same meaning as in that Part.
(5) In this section “social work training” means education or training that is suitable for people who are or wish to become social workers in England.”—(Edward Timpson.)
This new clause is intended to replace the Secretary of State’s powers under section 67 of the Care Standards Act 2000 in respect of social workers.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 18

Exercise by Special Health Authority of functions under section (Ensuring adequate provision of social work training)(1)(b)

“(1) The Secretary of State may direct a Special Health Authority to exercise functions under section (Ensuring adequate provision of social workers)(1)(b) so far as relating to the provision of financial or other assistance.
(2) The National Health Service Act 2006 has effect as if—
(a) any direction under subsection (1) were a direction under section 7 of that Act, and
(b) any functions exercisable by the Special Health Authority by virtue of a direction under subsection (1) were exercisable under that section.
(3) Directions under subsection (1)—
(a) must be given by an instrument in writing, and
(b) may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions.”—(Edward Timpson.)
This new clause is based on section 67A of the Care Standards Act 2000 and allows the Secretary of State to require a Special Health Authority to exercise the function of giving financial assistance to social workers.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 19

Amendments to do with this Part

“Schedule (Amendments to do with Part 2) contains further minor and consequential amendments relating to this Part.”—(Edward Timpson.)
This introduces NS1.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 65

Repeal of existing powers to regulate social workers

Amendments made: 14,page36,line20, leave out “after subsection (2ZE) insert” and insert “for subsection (2ZE) substitute”.
This adds a consequential amendment.
Amendment 15,page36,line27, at end insert—
“( ) in subsection (2A)(c), for “that section” substitute “section 60”;”
This adds a consequential amendment.
Amendment 16,page36,line29, at end insert—
“( ) In Schedule 3 (regulation of health care and associated professions)—
(a) in paragraph 10, for the definitions of “social care work in England”, “social care workers in England” and “the social work profession in England” substitute—
““social care work in England” and “social care workers in England” have the meaning given by section 60.”;
(b) in paragraph 11(2A)(b), for “members of the social work profession in England” substitute “engaging in social work in England”.”—(Edward Timpson.)
This adds a consequential amendment.
Clause 66

Interpretation of Part 2

Amendment made: 17,page37,line11, after “England” insert “(but see subsection (2));
‘(2) A person who is a member of a profession to which section 60(2) of the Health Act 1999 applies is not to be treated as a social worker in England by reason only of carrying out work as an approved mental health professional.”—(Edward Timpson.)
The basic purpose of this amendment is to ensure that a person is not subject to regulation as a social worker in England simply because he or she is an approved mental health professional. Approved mental health professionals are often members of other regulated professions so the amendment avoids dual regulation.
New Schedule 1

amendments to do with Part 2

“Part 1

General amendments

London County Council (General Powers) Act 1920
1 In section 18(e) of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1920, after “under the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” insert “or section45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017”.
Medicines Act 1968
2 In section 58 of the Medicines Act 1968, omit subsection (1ZA).
Video Recordings Act 1984
3 In section 3 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, omit subsection (11A).
London Local Authorities Act 1991
4 In section 4 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991, in paragraph (c) of the definition of “establishment for special treatment”, after “under the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” insert “or section45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017”.
Value Added Tax Act 1994
5 In Part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, in the Notes to Group7, omit note (2ZA).
Data Protection Act 1998
6 In section 69(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, in paragraph (h), omit the words from “, except in so far” to the end.
Care Standards Act 2000
7 The Care Standards Act 2000 is amended as follows.
8 (1) Section 55 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) as substituted by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, omit paragraph (a).
(3) Until the coming into force of the substitution of subsection (2) by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, the old version has effect as if in paragraph (a) after “social work” there were inserted “in Wales”.
(4) In subsection (3) as substituted by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, omit paragraph (k).
9 (1) Section 67 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsection (1A).
(3) In subsection (2) as substituted by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016—
(a) omit paragraph (a) (including the “and” at the end), and
(b) in paragraph (b), omit “other”.
(4) Until the coming into force of the substitution of subsection (2) by the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, the old version has effect as if the words from “courses”, in the first place it occurs, to “social workers” were omitted.
Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001
10 The Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 (SI 2002/254) is amended as follows.
11 (1) Article 3 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (5)(b)—
(a) in paragraph (ii), after “registrants or” insert “other”;
(b) at end of paragraph (iv) insert “and”;
(c) omit paragraphs (vi) and (vii).
(3) Omit paragraph (5AA).
12 In article 6(3)(aa), omit “or social work”.
13 In article 7(4), omit “or social work”.
14 (1) Article 9 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit paragraph (3A).
(3) In paragraph (8), omit “or social work”.
15 (1) Article 10 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (6), omit “or social work”.
(3) Omit paragraph (7).
16 In article 11A, omit paragraph (11).
17 (1) Article 12 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1)—
(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (b) insert “or”;
(b) omit sub-paragraph (d) and the “or” before it.
(3) In paragraph (2)—
(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (a) insert “and”;
(b) omit sub-paragraph (c) and the “and” before it.
18 (1) Article 13 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1), omit “or (1B)”.
(3) Omit paragraph (1B).
19 For the heading of article 13A substitute “Visiting health professionals from relevant European States”.
20 Omit article 13B.
21 In article 19(2A)(b), omit “or social work”.
22 In article 20, omit the words from “; but the reference” to the end.
23 (1) Article 37 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (1)(aa), omit “or social work”.
(3) Omit paragraph (1B).
(4) In paragraph (5A)(a), omit the words from “or registered as a social worker” to the end of that sub-paragraph.
(5) In paragraph (8), omit “(other than a hearing on an appeal relating to a social worker in England)”.
(6) Omit paragraph (8A).
24 (1) Article 38 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit paragraph (1ZA).
(3) In paragraph (4), omit “(subject to paragraph (5))”.
(4) Omit paragraph (5).
25 In article 39, omit paragraph (1A).
26 In Schedule 1, in paragraph 1A(1)(b), omit paragraph (ia) (but not the “and” at the end).
27 (1) In Schedule 3, paragraph 1 is amended as follows.
(2) In the definition of “visiting health or social work professional from a relevant European state”, omit “or social work” in both places.
(3) In the definition of “relevant professions”, omit “social workers in England;”.
(4) Omit the definition of “social worker in England”.
Adoption and Children Act 2002
28 (1) In section 10 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, in subsection (2), omit “, one of the registers maintained under” substitute “—
(a) the register of social workers in England maintained under section 45 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017,
(b) any register of social care workers in England maintained under an Order in Council under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 or any register maintained under such an Order in Council so far as relating to social care workers in England, or
(c) the register maintained under”.
(2) Until the coming into force of the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1), section 10(2) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 is to have effect as if the reference to the registers mentioned there included a reference to the part of the register maintained under article 5 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 that relates to social workers in England.
Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
29 In section 343(2) of the Income Tax (Earning and Pensions) Act 2003, in paragraph 1 of the Table, after sub-paragraph (r) insert—
“(s) the register of social workers in England kept under section45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017.”
National Health Service Act 2006
30 In section 126 of the National Health Service Act 2006, for subsection (4A) substitute—
“(4A) Subsection (4)(h) does not apply to persons in so far as they are registered as social care workers in England (within the meaning of section 60 of the Health Act 1999).”
National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006
31 In section 80 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, for subsection (4A) substitute—
“(4A) Subsection (4)(h) does not apply to persons in so far as they are registered as social care workers in England (within the meaning of section 60 of the Health Act 1999).”
Armed Forces Act 2006
32 In section 257(3) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, for paragraph(a) substitute—
“(a) Social Work England;”.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006
33 The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 is amended as follows.
34 In section 41(7), in the table, after entry 10 insert—

  

35 In Schedule 3, in paragraph 16(4), after paragraph (l) insert—
(m) Social Work England.”
Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007 (asp 14)
36 In section 30A(6) of the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007—
(a) omit “the social work profession in England or”;
(b) for “each of those expressions having the same meaning as in” substitute “within the meaning of”.”
Children and Young Persons Act 2008
37 (1) In section 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008, in subsection (6), for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) in the register maintained by Social Work England under section 45(1) of the Children and Social Work Act 2017;”.
(2) Until the coming into force of the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1), section 2(6)(a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 is to have effect as if the reference to the register mentioned there were to a register maintained under article 5 of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001.
Health and Social Care Act 2012
38 In the Health and Social Care Act 2012 omit sections 213, 215 and 216.
Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 (anaw 2)
39 The Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 is amended as follows.
40 In section 111(4)(b)—
(a) in the Welsh text, for “Cyngor y Proffesiynau Iechyd a Gofal” substitute “Gwaith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;
(b) in the English text, for “the Health and Care Professions Council” substitute “Social Work England”.
41 In section 117(4)(a)—
(a) in the Welsh text, after “Gofal” insert “neu Waith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;
(b) in the English text, after “Council” insert “or Social Work England”.
42 In section 119(4)(a)(ii)—
(a) in the Welsh text, for “y Cyngor Proffesiynau Iechyd a Gofal” substitute “Gwaith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;
(b) in the English text, for “the Health and Care Professions Council” substitute “Social Work England”.
43 In section 125(5)(a)(ii)—
(a) in the Welsh text, for “y Cyngor Proffesiynau Iechyd a Gofal” substitute “Gwaith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;
(b) in the English text, for “the Health and Care Professions Council” substitute “Social Work England”.
44 In section 174(5)(a)(ii)—
(a) in the Welsh text, for “Cyngor y Proffesiynau Iechyd a Gofal” substitute “Gwaith Cymdeithasol Lloegr”;
(b) in the English text, for “the Health and Care Professions Council” substitute “Social Work England”.

Part 2

Renaming of Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001

45 For the title to the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001 (SI 2002/254) substitute “Health Professions Order 2001”.
46 In article 1(1) of that Order (citation), for “the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” substitute “the Health Professions Order 2001”.
47 In the following provisions, for “the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” substitute “the Health Professions Order 2001”—
(a) section 18(e) of the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1920;
(b) section 3(11) of the Video Recordings Act 1984;
(c) 114ZA(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983;
(d) paragraph (E) in the entry for the London County Council (General Powers) Act 1920 in Schedule 2 to the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984;
(e) paragraph (c) of the definition of “establishment for special treatment” in section 4 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991;
(f) item 1(c) in Group 7, in Part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994;
(g) section 69(1)(h) of the Data Protection Act 1998;
(h) section 60(2)(c) of the Health Act 1999;
(i) sections 25C(8)(h) and 29(1)(j) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002;
(j) section 126(4)(a) of the National Health Service Act 2006;
(k) section 80(4)(a) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;
(l) entry 10 in the table in section 41(7) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
48 In the definition of “registered psychologist” in each of the following provisions, for “the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001” substitute “the Health Professions Order 2001”—
(a) section 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995;
(b) section 207(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
(c) section 21(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003;
(d) section 25 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.”—(Edward Timpson.)
This Schedule contains amendments to do with Part 2 of the Bill (social workers etc in England).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

John Bercow: We are making commendable progress—even greater progress, if that is imaginable, than I had anticipated, as may be apparent to colleagues.
Schedule 4

Oversight by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care

Amendments made: 18, page47,line26, leave out from beginning to “in” in line 27 and insert—
“( ) Section 25 (the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care) is amended as follows.
( ) .”
This amendment is consequential on amendment 19.
Amendment 19,page47,line29, at end insert—
“( ) For subsection (3A) substitute—
(3A) A reference in an enactment to a body mentioned in subsection (3) is not (unless there is express provision to the contrary) to be read as including—
(a) a reference to Social Work England, or
(b) a reference to the Health and Care Professions Council, or a regulatory body within subsection (3)(j), so far as it has functions relating to social care workers in England.”
( ) In subsection (3B) for the definition of “the social work profession in England” and “social care workers in England” substitute—
““social care workers in England” has the meaning given in section 60 of the 1999 Act.””—(Edward Timpson.)
This ensures that references in legislation to a regulatory body mentioned in section 25(3) of the National Health Service Reform and Health and Care Professions Act 2002 do not generally include a reference to Social Work England.

John Bercow: Consideration completed. I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motions, copies of which will be available shortly in the Vote Office and will be distributed by the Doorkeepers. I know they will be of very consuming  interest to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is greatly seized of the importance and content of these matters.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—

John Bercow: I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified the following provisions of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 8 and 9.
I have certified the following provisions of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence: clauses 1 to 7, 11 to 31 and 41 to 67, new clauses 15 to 18 added to the Bill on Report and schedules 2 to 4.
For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(4), I have certified the following amendment made to the Bill since Second Reading as relating exclusively to England and Wales: amendment 13 to clause 62, made in the Public Bill Committee.
Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office. Under Standing Order No. 83M, consent motions are therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motions?

Edward Timpson: indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Natascha Engel in the Chair]

Natascha Engel: I remind hon. Members that if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords] and the certified amendment made to the Bill—
Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee.
Amendment certified under Standing Order No. 83L(4) as relating exclusively to England and Wales.
Amendment 13 made in the Public Bill Committee.—(Edward Timpson.)

Sylvia Hermon: Just a very short intervention, but I always think it is very useful for the Minister to have the opportunity to expand on an  issue, rather than just touching the Dispatch Box and moving on.
The Minister and his Government colleagues will be well aware of the fact that we have just had the Assembly election in Northern Ireland. The results were in some quarters a surprise and in other quarters they were not a surprise at all. We now have a very short window of opportunity for the Northern Ireland Assembly to be restored. If the talks are not successful in the next three weeks, will the Minister and his Government colleagues consider extending some of the Bill’s provisions to Northern Ireland? Parts of it are very valuable, and really ought to be extended in the event of a prolonged period of direct rule.

Edward Timpson: I hear what the hon. Lady says. Of course we are all looking very carefully at the situation in Northern Ireland and hope that we can achieve a resolution as soon as possible, but in relation to the Bill, we have been very clear about which provisions are appropriate in relation to devolution arrangements. Having said that, I should add that on certain aspects of the Bill, we want to co-operate across the whole United Kingdom. I shall take that up with whoever is in place in Northern Ireland in my reciprocal capacity, so that we can make progress throughout the country.

Pete Wishart: I was loth to speak in this debate, although I think that I am the main contributor to Legislative Grand Committee debates: I believe that I have spoken in them more than any other Member. However, I did not have a clue what was going on. One of my hon. Friends asked me, “What exactly did the Speaker rule in his statement about the certification of English-only business?” I should be interested to learn whether the Minister knows what it all meant, because my colleagues and I have not got a clue, and that goes to the heart of this nonsense about English votes for English laws. No one knows what is going on. The Constitution Unit examined it in detail, and concluded that it was opaque in the extreme.
No one has much of an idea about what we are actually discussing here. I think I heard something about a procedure requiring double consent. What comes first, the English-only vote or the whole-House vote? I know that I cannot take part in one of the votes, but which one is it? That has not been made clear to us today.
If we are to continue to have these Legislative Grand Committees, we shall need a little bit more than a Minister going to the Dispatch Box, touching it with his hands, and then sitting down again. The Mace goes up, goes down and then goes up again, and nothing is debated and discussed. We were told that English votes for English laws was just about the most important innovation in Parliament when it came to debates in the House, and it is not good enough for Members not to take advantage of these opportunities. I appeal to at least one English Member to stand up and speak about the English-only clauses. If they are so important that we suspend our business, surely they should be addressed.
I hope that in future I shall not have to speak about Legislative Grand Committee motions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] For once, I concur with Conservative Members. This procedure has reached a stage at which it is beyond a farce. It is bizarre, it is unnecessary, it disrupts the business of the House, and no one is even bothered about making a contribution.
Question agreed to.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the  Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)),
That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]:
Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence
Clauses 1 to 7, 11 to 31 and 41 to 67 of the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee including the amendments made on Report;
New clause 15, new clause 16, new clause 17 and new clause 18 added on Report; and
Schedules 2 to 4 to the Bill as amended in the Public Committee, including the amendments made on Report.—(Edward Timpson.)
Question agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.
Third Reading

Edward Timpson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill is fundamentally about improving the lives of vulnerable children. These are children who have often faced challenges that most of us can only imagine: they might have faced abuse and neglect; they might have been let down time and again by the people who are supposed to love and protect them; they might be being exploited by perpetrators preying on their vulnerability. So it is right and proper that Parliament should devote time and energy to improving their plight. To that end, I am very grateful to all those hon. Members who have engaged constructively with the passage of this Bill and demonstrated their shared commitment to these critical issues.
This Bill represents an important step forward for vulnerable children. It defines what good corporate parenting looks like, and secures the involvement of the whole council in looking out for children in care or leaving care. It requires every local area to set out exactly what support they are offering to care leavers, making it easier for young people to access support. It extends the help of a personal adviser to all care leavers up to the age of 25. It introduces improved national arrangements for analysing serious incidents and learning from them, and strengthened arrangements for local multi-agency co-ordination of safeguarding. It extends educational support to children leaving care via adoption or special guardianship. It creates the conditions for good placement decisions to be made for children coming into the care system. It introduces a new, bespoke regulator for social work that will be empowered to raise standards in social work and raise the status of this vital profession. It also paves the way for a new system of assessment and accreditation, which will give social workers opportunities to develop and progress in their profession.
In addition—again with thanks to the Members across this House who have supported the Government on this—the Bill now includes important measures on  relationships and sex education and PSHE. We need to recognise that the world in which children are growing up is changing rapidly. As policy makers and implementers, we need to keep pace with those changes, and ensure that children are well equipped to cope with each new opportunity and challenge they are likely to face. I am delighted, therefore, that this House has supported the Government amendments to put age-appropriate relationships and sex education on a statutory footing. This will be a very significant step to promote the safeguarding of all children in England.
As I said earlier, the changes to be delivered through this Bill reflect my personal passion and commitment to improving the lives of vulnerable children and families. My pledge to the House is to implement these changes as expeditiously as possible when the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament and received royal assent. I thank all Members who have engaged with, and contributed to, this Bill, including the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who cannot be with us here today but shares that same passion.
Of course, we would not be where we are without the dedicated work of all the officials and Clerks of this House, and the many officials in my Department who have worked tirelessly to make the Bill’s passage as smooth as possible. I take this opportunity to thank them all, in particular the Bill team and my private office, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Angela Rayner: I echo the thanks given by the Minister, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who cannot be with us today. She did a tremendous amount of work on the Bill. I also thank the Committee members who contributed to the Bill and all Members from across the House who have made it a much better Bill. I commend the Government on the work they have done towards finding consensus within the House on the Bill. I also thank all the organisations that have contributed to the Bill throughout its passage.
We have had a fantastic debate. I am disappointed that we have not managed to add new clause 14 to the Bill, but I hope the Minister was listening in particular to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) when she talked about the model of good housekeeping in the amendment we voted on. I hope the Minister will look at that and see how we can make progress on it in later stages.

Sylvia Hermon: I voted in support of new clause 14. I should like to say again on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland and those in my constituency that we want to be able to welcome refugee children just as much as England, Wales and especially Scotland, which has already done so much. If the Minister is going to look at this issue, will he also remember that the people of Northern Ireland would like to have been included in new clause 14? The new clause was lost, but I know that the Minister has taken note of it.

Angela Rayner: I thank the hon. Lady for reminding us of the great contribution that Northern Ireland makes to this place.
I echo the Minister’s points about the progress that has been made on relationships and sex education and on PSHE. This is a tremendous step forward, although there is still work to be done. Many of the Select Committee members who have taken part in the debates today have done a tremendous amount of work on this, and I commend them for that. I also welcome the Minister’s earlier contribution on new clause 3, which dealt with sibling contact. That is going to make a massive difference to vulnerable people. On new clause 7, we know that a cycle of deprivation can be created among vulnerable children, who can grow up to become vulnerable adults. If nothing else, we should be trying to break those cycles. That is where the cross-party efforts in this place to achieve a true meritocracy come in.
I want to mention clauses 32 to 39, the so-called innovation clauses. There was huge resistance to those measures from care leavers, adult survivors of abuse, social workers, academics, children’s rights campaigners and charities. The Together for Children coalition has 53 organisations, more than 160 individual experts and 108,000 signatures from concerned members of the public. On top of this, organisations as diverse as the Magistrates Association, the Law Society, the Family Law Bar Association, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the GMB trade union, which represents foster carers, as well as some of our oldest children’s charities, including Action for Children and the NSPCC, warned of the grave dangers to our country’s most vulnerable children and young people of allowing councils to opt out of their statutory duties. I therefore commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for accepting those arguments and removing the relevant chapters from the Bill.
On new clause 17, we have some concerns about the way in which the Secretary of State will decide to discharge her duties with respect to the registrar, and specifically about the extent to which Social Work England will be able to exercise the necessary independence with respect to accrediting the courses leading to registered social worker status. I hope the Minister will take note of those concerns.
I should like to end by echoing the comments of many Members throughout the passage of the Bill about the great unsung heroes who work in our children’s services. The Minister has rightly said that social workers make an important positive contribution to our communities. I must add that my niece is a social work manager who looks after children, and she does a tremendous job, as do every single one of the workers in that field. They are at the forefront of helping children, families and disabled and older adults who are distressed, in difficulty and perhaps in danger. Most of their work goes unseen, without recognition or celebration, but they deserve our thanks for the major contribution that they make every single day.

Maria Miller: The Bill is groundbreaking in making sex and relationship education compulsory. The Government have listened to the evidence from Select Committees such as the Women and Equalities Committee, which I chair, and the Minister’s team is to be congratulated. The Bill will benefit millions of children, three quarters of whom believe that they will feel safer as a result of our decision this afternoon to give sex and relationship  education a statutory basis. I thank the organisations that have supported and assisted the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and I have done—Barnardo’s, Plan UK, and Girlguiding are but a few.
When the amendments go to the other place, I hope that careful consideration is given to the fact that the sex and relationship education amendments were made without the need for a vote in this place owing to the cross-party consensus. The Bill is important in many respects, but it will be often cited in this place because of the progress made in that area. I again put on the record my personal thanks to the Minister for the work that he has done over a long period of time. He must be a very pleased man indeed.

Stuart McDonald: I congratulate everyone involved in the Bill’s progress. It is fair to say that I have come to it very late indeed, largely because my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) has other parliamentary duties to attend to today. I thank her for her contribution during the Bill’s passage. No one would argue with the Bill’s stated goals, but these issues are devolved matters, so I will leave it to Members from English constituencies to debate the extent to which those goals have been achieved.
There are two main clauses with implications for Scotland. The first is clause 10, which reinstates procedures to place children in secure accommodation in different parts of Great Britain. I agree with the shadow Minister that how those procedures operate in practice demands significant scrutiny. Transfers from one constituent part of Great Britain to another or placement in a secure unit should not be routine or the first option, but it is right that it should remain an option in appropriate circumstances.
The second is clause 40. Both the SNP here and the Scottish Government recognise the need for procedures to support staff in raising concerns to ensure a safe and secure environment in the children and social care sector. Any proposals that strengthen whistleblowing procedures and help to protect employees and service users across the public sector are welcome. We regret the missed opportunities for additional social security support for care leavers and for assessing the capacity of local authorities to safeguard children in new clause 14. However, I have no doubt that we will return to those issues in due course.

Tim Loughton: I come in at the end of the Bill’s progress, having been in at the beginning on Second Reading, but I want to pay tribute to the hard work that has gone into the Bill and to crave your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, in talking about something that did not make it into the legislation.
Having had experience of children’s Bills over the past 15 years or so, I find it interesting that they have a propensity to be hijacked by things not present on Second Reading that then become the headline in the final stages. True to form, that has happened again with amendments about sex and relationship education, which I fully support—I added my name to that amendment—and about child refugees, which I also support but which did  not make it into the Bill in the form that some of us had hoped for. In many respects, that is a shame because it takes attention and focus away from the really important meat of the everyday experiences of vulnerable children, particularly those who find themselves in the care system through no fault of their own. Successive Governments have strived to do much and have achieved much for those children, but we still need to do much more. In welcoming the Bill, I draw the House’s attention to the really good things in it that we did not have much time to discuss today. They were perhaps the more important parts of the Bill as it went through its various stages.
I, too, welcome the addition of the sex and relationship educations clauses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said, that is ground breaking. Some of us have banged our head against brick walls in various shadow ministerial and post-ministerial positions over many, many years, and the need for it is so screamingly obvious, yet, for all sorts of reasons that I have never quite understood, the measure fails to make it into legislation.
There is an increasing online threat to our children. Shockingly, they are being lured into many things with which we would never have been confronted in our teenage years—just a few years ago in your case, Madam Deputy Speaker, but slightly longer ago for others. Children are exposed to those threats on a daily basis, and the best way to give them defences against those threats must surely be, at an early age at school, to educate, inform, warn and support them against the hazards out in the wider world and the wider web.
By way of example, there was a shocking interview with a teenage girl on “Woman’s Hour” a few years ago. She had been in a relationship with a teenage boy—I think both were under the age of 16—and he had forced her to watch and act out violent pornographic videos, and she had gone along with it. It is shocking that, at her young age, she was under pressure to do that and that it was deemed to be common practice. What was really alarming is that, when the interviewer asked, “Why on earth didn’t you tell him to get lost and report him?” her response was, “Well, I didn’t think I had the right.” If sex and relationships education is anything, it is about giving confidence and empowering young people, particularly young women, that theirs is the choice to say yes or no, and theirs alone.
If we can develop what has now become part of the Bill into an empowerment exercise for our young people so that they respect other young people and have the confidence to say no—with no meaning no—we will have done this generation of children and future generations a huge service. We have taken a major step forward with this Bill, although the step was not intended on Second Reading, but fortunately it made it in at the last moment with wide cross-party consensus, which is excellent.
The House of Lords is forming a habit of disagreeing with the House of Commons, but I hope that in this case it does not disagree with us. When Ministers formulate the important guidance that needs to go with this legislation, I urge them to be sensitive because this is a big move for many people that will need to be handled carefully and cautiously.
There are many other good things in the Bill, including the local offer for care leavers. In our debates on the Bill we have heard numerous times the figures on the poor outcomes for children in care and for care leavers. The  very small proportion who make it to university shows that we still have a long way to go. There is still a large gap in the educational achievement of children in care and others. The gap has narrowed a little, but we need to go so much further. The Government’s support for children in care and adopted children through the pupil premium is a small part of trying to level the playing field.
I welcome the measures, some more controversial than others, on regulating social workers and the need for continuing professional development, but the problem remains that we have a growing shortage of experienced child protection social workers. Work by the all-party parliamentary group for children—I will allude to the study in a minute—shows huge divergences between the experiences in different local authorities. At its worst, one local authority has a 57% locum rate for child social workers. How on earth can we have continuity of care and empathy of care for deeply traumatised and vulnerable children when they are being looked after by non-permanent social workers? That is a huge challenge, and we still have a lot of work to do.
The refugee amendment did not make it into the Bill, but I hope that the spirit of that amendment, which had great support on both sides of the House and on which many undertakings were given by Ministers, will not be forgotten as the Bill’s measures are turned into practice.
Clauses 32 to 39, on the so-called powers to test different ways of working, are no longer in the Bill. I congratulate the Government, because this is a good example of their listening to people from across various professions—academics, practitioners, children’s charities, politicians and others, including me—who were seriously concerned about the huge principles that would have been at stake had the clauses passed into law. There are no parallels for allowing a local authority, or, indeed, other agencies to step outside primary or secondary legislation effectively at the whim of the Secretary of State of the day. That has not been tried with adults—there are no examples of parallels in the Care Act 2014, the Mental Health Act 2007 or the Mental Capacity Act 2005—so why on earth would the Government risk using vulnerable children as guinea pigs to experiment with a new model of working?
I am all in favour of innovation and of being creative in how we get better outcomes and better support for children who most need it, particularly in the care system, but I just do not think we need to remove primary and secondary legislation that has been built up since 1933, on a whim and without consultation. Whatever the safeguards we were promised, at the end of the day it would mean a postcode lottery for the rights of children and for the responsibilities towards those children of different local authorities, depending on when those children happened to be in care.
Back in 2010, one of the first things the coalition Government did in the Department for Education was to recruit Professor Eileen Munro and appoint her to head the complete overhaul of child protection social work. I was pleased and proud to be part of appointing her and implementing her recommendations. We reduced social work legislation from something like 760 pages in the “Working Together” manual, which had accrued over years and years during which the solution to better child protection was more legislation. In the end, that  got in the way of social workers being able to use their professionalism, instincts and training to do the right thing by the child. Instead, they had constantly to look at the rule book and over their shoulders.
It was right that we reduced that rule book and that manual and gave greater freedoms and flexibility to social workers, but at no point did that require us, or was it required of us, to remove any of the duties that make up the safety net of primary and secondary legislation. Professor Munro never asked for it, we never considered it and it was never done. It would have been absolutely inappropriate to do it now, so it was completely appropriate that Professor Munro did not give her support to the Government’s previous proposals. I am pleased that they have listened, and I am grateful to Lord Laming and Lord Mackay in the other place, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) today, for putting that message across to Ministers.
The Bill has to address the huge variations in practice and outcomes for vulnerable children in care throughout the country. The all-party group for children is about to produce a report on the state of children’s social care. Last year, the average rate of referrals to children’s services was 532 per 10,000 children in the local population. The lowest rate for a local authority was 187 and the highest was 753 per 10,000 children—that is a difference of nine times, just depending on where the child happened to be. Last year, the average national rate of children becoming subject to child protection plans was 54 per 10,000, but the lowest local authority rate was 16.5 and the highest was 180.5—a difference of 10 times. Our report highlights huge differences in experiences and outcomes for children in care, depending on what local authority they happen to live in. That is the biggest challenge that we face. We owe the same duty of care and responsibility to a vulnerable child in care regardless of whether he or she lives in Yorkshire, Sussex or Cornwall. Those clauses that are now no longer in the Bill would have just widened those differential experiences. The Government’s priority now must be to narrow those gaps to make sure that we are doing an ever better job for every child in care in every part of the country.
In closing, may I say that I welcome this Bill? I also welcome the fact that the Government have listened, that the debate has contributed to a great strengthening of some of the measures in this Bill and that some additional measures have been included, but, at the end of the day, we owe our thanks, our respect and our regard to the social workers on the frontline who do an exceedingly challenging job in very challenging circumstances, often dealing with very challenged children and families. We owe a duty of care, thanks and respect to the many foster carers and, increasingly, adoptive parents coming forward to give those children a second chance of a safe, stable and loving home. If there is one upside from our debate on refugees and the publicity about refugees, it is that more people have come forward to offer themselves as foster carers and adoptive parents both for refugee children coming to the county and for the indigenous children for whom we still have a large shortage of places in foster care and for adoption. Those are the people on the frontline who make the difference to children’s lives. We have a lot more to do. We owe much greater care to our vulnerable children, but this Bill is a very good step in making that achievable.

Steve McCabe: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I very much agreed with the latter part of his remarks about the challenges, the so-called innovation clauses and the debt that we owe to social workers.
I realise that it is customary to make congratulatory remarks at this stage in the proceedings, but, to be perfectly honest, this is a good example of a piece of legislation that has really rather lost its way. As the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who is no longer in his place, put it earlier, the Minister said nothing to indicate that he had a problem with new clause 14, but he still urged his colleagues to vote against it. He was left looking like a Minister vulnerable to senior colleagues at the Home Office rather than the Minister for Vulnerable Children. [Interruption.] There you go, Minister. Never mind they will look after you.
The Minister then proposed new clause 15; his colleagues warned him to guard against smuggling sexual education content into relationship education. I welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), but surely the Minister either believes in such education to safeguard children in this day and age or he does not. I wonder whether new clause 16 will ever see the light of day or whether his more atavistic colleagues will have it kicked into the long grass before the election.
The Minister then formally deleted the entirety of what he was stoutly defending in Committee as the “innovation” clauses, but without a single word of explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) was typically charitable and generous to the Minister, but I am really keen that the House should hear why he changed his mind. I would love it if the House had some explanation for why these clauses, which he claimed had so much support from so many notable experts just a few months ago and were so essential to new and innovative approaches to children’s social care legislation, had to go. The House would like to hear what happened. Was he wrong in Committee? Has something changed his mind? It would not do him any harm to offer the House an explanation. It is good to know that the Government listen, but we would like to know what they were listening to, and what had an impact on them.
May I clarify, at this late stage, whether the provisions on training in Government new clause 17 include—[Interruption.] Yes, this is Third Reading, which I understand allows me to speak on the entire contents of the Bill.

Natascha Engel: Order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: on Third Reading, he is perfectly entitled to debate anything in the Bill, but not anything that is not in the Bill; if he could restrict himself to the former, that would be great.

Steve McCabe: That is exactly what I am attempting to do, Madam Deputy Speaker; Government new clause 17 is in the Bill, and I want to ask whether it covers those doing initial training at higher education institutions, or whether the Government plan to exclude initial training from it.
I am sorry that this does not suit some Government Members, but if ever there was an example of the Government needing to prepare a bit more before rushing to legislate, it is the Bill. I do not for a second doubt the Minister’s good intentions, but it is absolutely clear, if one looks at the Bill from its start point to where we are now, that his Government are utterly confused in their objectives.

Kelly Tolhurst: It is a pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); with his expertise and knowledge in this area, he has been a great source of information and guidance to me.
I was elected two years ago, and I have had great involvement with some of the most vulnerable children in the country, and particularly in my area. When I was a local councillor, I saw some of the decisions taken around the cabinet table on looked-after children; my sister is a social worker; and I continue to be an independent visitor for a looked-after child. I am extremely proud that this Conservative Government have brought forward a Bill that seeks to improve outcomes for our looked-after children, and children in need. I pay tribute to the Ministers; it is because of their dedication to improving outcomes for our looked-after children that the Bill is being championed.
I welcomed the Minister’s comments on sibling contact, including when the children are not looked after, although I have not once met a social worker or foster carer who has denied a young person in care an opportunity for contact with their siblings. I have seen some of the damage done by contact with parents. Parents have legislative rights to contact with their children, and I have seen really damaging outcomes from forcing newly looked-after children to have such contact, which they do not always want; I hope that that is always taken into account, and that the best interests of children are always to the fore when decisions are taken.
On Second Reading, I welcomed the introduction of the local offer in the Bill, and I continue to do so today. I also supported the amendment that was brought forward. The local offer should always be about more than just financial support, and it should be more than a box-ticking exercise. In my experience, young people need guidance and support during their transition from being looked after to going it alone. From what I have seen, local authorities, due to budget burdens, will only ever deliver what they are statutorily obliged to deliver. Therefore, as we evaluate the implementation of the Bill, I would like to see greater prescription of the services we would like local authorities to provide for care leavers, which will hopefully take into account accommodation, training and finance.
Investment in our young people will always pay off. From my experience, people leaving care sometimes lack the necessary experiences and training, because they have often been wrapped in a safety blanket—more so than people’s biological children—so it is important that we do enough for young people in care to make sure that they are prepared. In some of the cases I have seen, that has not always taken place, and I hope we now have an opportunity to further the local offer.
I want to mention new clause 14 briefly. On Second Reading, one Opposition Back Bencher made a speech; I was pleased the Chamber was a lot fuller earlier, when we spoke about refugees, than it was on Second Reading. However, I would have liked to have seen a real championing of the need to find foster carers and social workers to look after the children we are already struggling to place in some parts of the country. We are not selling the fact that becoming a foster carer is an amazing thing to do. We also need an acceptance that when somebody becomes a foster carer, there is a mountain of assessment and training to go through before they are, quite rightly, qualified to look after young people. It is exactly the same in relation to unaccompanied young minors, and it is right that we have the same high standards for them. I therefore welcome what the Minister said about reporting to Parliament, but the way we look after refugees and our looked-after children must be on a par.
We have seen increased levels of referrals, especially to independent fostering agencies. Speaking from my own experience, we often see large numbers of referrals in Kent of young people from London, and we have also seen that with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. We hear that many local authorities around the country have capacity, and I hope they will continue to support counties such as Kent. I hope they will take part in the national transfer scheme and help Kent, as well as Croydon and other London boroughs.
Let me turn to the clauses that were removed from the Bill today. In some parts of the country, as I have outlined, there is great demand for intervention and support for looked-after children and children in need. We have seen growing demand for intervention for young people, and especially those with complex needs. The strain on local authorities in terms of providing high-quality support and placements is still there. There is great variation in the quality of service and practice throughout the country, as my hon. Friend outlined, and outcomes for our young people remain poor.
I welcome the fact that the Government have the desire to get behind innovation in the children’s social care system and to drive and encourage the reviewing and sharing of best practice. I am sure this is not the end and that the Government will continue to look at ways in which they can improve things, because the Minister is extremely passionate about doing what he can for young people in our care. I would like to see vast improvement across the country in the delivery of children’s social care. This should not be—I am glad it will not be—the preserve of local authorities that may have been judged to be good; it must happen in other parts of the country where innovation is much needed.
I look forward to the Minister making further proposals on meaningful reform, after consultation with frontline professionals and care deliverers. For example, I would like IROs—independent reviewing officers—to become truly independent of local authorities, enabling them to make decisions and face challenges on the outcomes for our looked-after children without the demands of budgetary pressures. We still need to tackle social workers’ caseloads because there is such a vast difference in the number of cases that social workers will have in different local authority areas. Local authorities are struggling to keep up with demand, and when there is higher demand, caseloads are greater. We need to protect our workforce  and enable them to carry out their role knowing that they are safe when doing so, with the personal capacity to deliver good-quality services to the young people they are charged with looking after.
There is a high burn-out rate for professionals dealing with child protection cases, and many social workers are leaving frontline social work due to the stresses involved. Local authorities are relying heavily on agency workers, and this impacts on the continuity of some of the decision making that takes place subsequently. In turn, there is lots of churn in the system. I have seen examples where looked-after children may have 10 to 12 different social workers over a very short period, and that is just not right. We need to be bold. I hope that the Government come forward with further recommendations and further work in this area, and I am confident that that will happen.
My final point is about social worker regulation. Social workers, in my opinion, have never had the credit that they deserve. They are sometimes the forgotten public servants. They are vilified when something goes wrong, but we never hear about all the good work they are doing day in, day out in protecting families. Social Work England is a positive way forward. Social workers need a stand-alone body to make sure that they are held in the high regard that they deserve. I would like the Secretary of State and Ministers to work with the professional bodies to make sure that the qualifications and continual professional development is right and is acceptable for these workers. It is true that we see variations in the standard and quality of the delivery of social worker practice among individual social workers. I have had some first-hand experience of that.
Although there is some concern from the profession about these changes, I really do believe that they rightly put social workers in the position that they deserve. I hope that the Government will continue to work with them to make sure that they, as a profession, can continue to carry out their job knowing that the Government—this Conservative Government—are fully behind them and all that they are doing for young people in this country.

Victoria Borwick: I very much support the ambitions of this Bill. As we have all seen, there have been a number of changes during its passage. I want to be assured by the ministerial team that, notwithstanding those changes, we are monitoring the outcomes of safeguarding for those in residential care and those in boarding schools—not just those sent because of the care system but those who attend. Some of my constituents have raised concerns about that. I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments.

Edward Timpson: I can offer my hon. Friend that reassurance. The care plan outcomes of every child who is in care have to be closely monitored to make sure that, whatever their setting, they are achieving what the plan sets out. Of course, I am happy to discuss that with her further and to provide her with more detail about how we can do that in the future and keep a close eye on the issues that she has rightly raised.

Victoria Borwick: I thank the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

United Kingdom Statistics Authority

Chris Skidmore: I beg to move,
That this House endorses the nomination of Sir David Norgrove for appointment as Chair of the United Kingdom Statistics Authority.
May I first offer my thanks to Sir Andrew Dilnot, who has performed the role very commendably over the past five years? I truly believe that his initiative has driven all of us to think more critically about statistics and how we can make better use of them.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) for his help in the selection process. I am pleased that that process, which included a pre-appointment scrutiny session before the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, has identified in Sir David Norgrove an outstanding candidate and a worthy successor to Sir Andrew Dilnot.
I, like the Committee, am convinced that Sir David has both the professional and the personal qualities necessary to make an excellent chair of the UK Statistics Authority. I commend the motion to the House.

Andrew Gwynne: Before I turn to the nomination of Sir David Norgrove as chair of the UK Statistics Authority, I should like to echo the Minister’s tribute to the outgoing chair, Sir Andrew Dilnot. In so doing, I want to acknowledge two important contributions.
First, the outgoing chair, Sir Andrew Dilnot, has, as noted by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its report published in January, worked tirelessly over the past five years in maintaining both the independence and the overall excellence of the UK Statistics Authority. There is no better example of that approach to independence than when Sir Andrew took the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the current Health Secretary to task for presenting to the public misleading figures on supposed increases in NHS spending.
I note how, in the four years that have followed, the Government have been less than attentive to Sir Andrew’s concerns, but it is important to recognise the impartiality that the role brings to challenging the spin and the misuse of data and statistics to which all politicians, if we are honest, succumb from time to time. If we look back over his term, we will see that Sir Andrew has performed his public duties robustly and with complete impartiality, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him for his public service.
Secondly, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and the Select Committee on Public Accounts under her leadership for their engagement in the appointment process. In an age where terms such as “fake news” are bounded around regularly, it is more important than ever that we have an independent, rigorous and reliable official statistics body.
It is also important in the current climate that the public have faith in such an institution. A 2014 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life found  that only 30% of the general public had confidence in Parliament as a public institution, which amplifies the new chair’s task in maintaining the rigid independence demanded by his post. The public deserve accurate statistics, free from political interference, and Members on both sides of the House must do more to ensure that the public have total confidence on the issues that matter most.

Daniel Poulter: I assure the shadow Minister and the Minister that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee gave full consideration to ensuring that there is a worthy successor to the current chair of the UK Statistics Authority. As the shadow Minister says, it is vital that the public have faith in public statistics. Does he agree that a key job of the new chair may be to challenge statistics presented in UK referendums? We are aware that the country may face another referendum in Scotland. Some of the statistics used in the EU referendum could usefully have been challenged by the chair of the Statistics Authority.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are talking about the misuse of statistics and data not just within the parliamentary forum, but in elections. He mentioned the EU referendum, in which the origin and robustness of the statistic about health spending post Brexit, in particular, were quite questionable. I share his view on that.
In respect of Sir David’s professional competence, I agree with the Committee’s report that his extensive experience makes him highly suitable for the role of the chair of the UK Statistics Authority. As the Minister noted, Sir David Norgrove has had a distinguished career, most recently as the chair of the Low Pay Commission, where his leadership in support of campaigns for the national living wage and national minimum wage has been crucial. In addition to that experience, he has also chaired the Pensions Regulator, and that will stand him in good stead in driving forward the structural changes needed in the Statistics Authority, as laid out in the Bean review.
We are convinced that Sir David’s skills and professional background as chair of two highly regarded and statistically driven public bodies will allow him effectively to oversee the twin tasks of statistical production and strictly regulating Government statistics and the veracity of Departments’ claims. Throughout his career, Sir David has been unafraid to question authority when those with power threatened to abuse or distort the process. That was seen when he famously faced down Sir Philip Green after the retail entrepreneur tried to buy Marks & Spencer with a bid that jeopardised the solvency of the pension scheme. Sir David’s record speaks for itself, and I am therefore satisfied—and rather hopeful about the fact—that he will bring the same toughness and fairness to challenging the Government’s use of statistics.
The Opposition are less concerned about the suitability of Sir David for the role in question than they are about the lack of diversity in the wider appointment process, which gives the impression of a closed system. Of the 14 candidates who applied for the chairperson’s position, only three were women and 11 were men. Added to that, all three previous authority chairs have been white, male, and Oxbridge-educated. The Labour party recognises  the quality that diversity can bring to both the selection and appointment processes, and we urge the Government to take steps to ensure that future candidates are from as diverse a pool as possible to ensure that every part of Britain is represented and that each person has an equal opportunity to aspire to the highest posts in the land.
The post involves the significant responsibility of promoting and safeguarding the production and publication of official figures that serve the public good. Sir David has already made it clear how crucial it is to have consistency in how the Government produce their figures. The appointment of a new chair of the board of the UK Statistics Authority is extremely important. We need a candidate who can maintain the code of practice for official statistics and ensure that Government figures are produced and presented to the highest standards of independence and integrity. We share the view of the Government and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee that in Sir David Norgrove we have a candidate who can rise to that challenge.

Roger Mullin: SNP Members welcome the appointment of Sir David, and we certainly wish him well in his future role as chair of the UK Statistics Authority. However, we have some concerns about the UK Statistics Authority’s rather narrow approach to the way in which it reviews and undertakes a critique of the statistics used by the Government and others.
Tomorrow, we will be faced with the Budget. I predict that it will have forecasts from the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility, and may possibly even throw in the odd forecast from the Bank of England. One thing that will be true of every forecast produced by all those bodies is that not a single confidence interval will be mentioned. We know that their forecasts are consistent—consistently wrong and always need revision, partly because the models used are inappropriate.
I notice in the description of the UK Statistics Authority that part of its task is to make sure statistics are available to aid Government decision making, which is a very worthy purpose. I have struggled to find any expertise in, for example, Bayesian statistics that could be used as decision aids. That is possibly because the Government do not use any statistical decision aids in their decision making. I think there is a long way to go in developing the authority to provide the kind of critique that will realistically help the Government both now and in the future. For that future, however, we wish Sir David well.

Daniel Poulter: I rise as a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which scrutinised the appointment, to give a warm welcome to Sir David’s appointment. I pay tribute to his predecessor, Sir Andrew Dilnot, for his work, which did well in holding the Government to account and ensuring that statistics were used reasonably when debating the NHS.
It is a difficult time for politics for all of us. We have come through a referendum campaign, during which various statements and assertions were made on both sides of the debate. At the forefront of the minds of members of the Committee when scrutinising the appointment was the need to ensure that we had a new chair who would scrutinise the use of statistics in future referendum campaigns. It does credit to nobody in the House to see statistics potentially misused in referendum debates that captivated the mind and votes of the overwhelming majority of the public. The shadow Minister quite rightly outlined some of the concerns about NHS spending that were raised by those on one side of the referendum debate, while other perhaps somewhat exaggerated claims were made by those on the other side of the debate. No matter which side of the debate we have sympathy with, we can recognise that the referendum campaign did no credit to the use of statistics. It is important to have an independent chair—I am sure Sir David will fulfil that role—and I hope that that will restore some public faith in the independent challenge offered to the misuse of statistics in the future.

Sylvia Hermon: I, too, congratulate Sir David. However, I want to pick up the point that the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly made about the importance of looking closely at statistics during elections and referendums. May I add to that list by encouraging the authority, under its new chair, to look at the statistics that may well be claimed by Sinn Féin for a border poll in Northern Ireland? This is not just about referendums and elections, but about such a border poll. It is very important indeed that propaganda perpetuated by Sinn Féin and the popularity of Sinn Féin do not lead—unexpectedly, and without any good reason—to a border poll in Northern Ireland. The authority should look at that.

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady is absolutely right in her comment. She may be reassured by the fact that, when scrutinising the appointment, members of the Committee asked Sir David directly about his approach to the issues involved in his scrutiny of another possible referendum in Scotland, and of debates in all devolved parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland and Wales. He assured our Committee that he will be keeping a keen eye on these issues. We are very aware of the recent concerns that may have manifested themselves as a result of the election results at the weekend. I am sure that Sir David will be mindful of that as he comes into post. When we have what are sometimes emotive debates, it is vital that the public can have faith that there is an independent authority that will hold politicians to account. It is important that that happens in Northern Ireland and, indeed, elsewhere.
I am sure that another pressing issue on Sir David’s mind will be ensuring that claims that may be made in a future Scottish referendum are properly scrutinised. I remember that there were a lot of discussions about North sea oil and its potential revenues during the last referendum debate. I am sure that he will be mindful of that when taking up his position. When there is a referendum, or an important debate of that nature, the public must have faith that politicians are in no way willingly misleading the public, although they may exaggerate statistics. We would not wish to do that in this House, and we should not do it in debates outside this place.
The Committee was satisfied that in Sir David we have a new chair who meets those criteria, will be a robust defender of the correct use of statistics, and will hold Executives—and, indeed, political parties—in all parts of the United Kingdom to account when they make claims in referendum campaigns.

Kelvin Hopkins: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. I will call the hon. Gentleman even though he was not here at the beginning of the debate. We are not short on time and he has promised that he will be brief.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for being late; the earlier business finished much sooner than I expected so I was caught short, so to speak.
As I chaired the confirmation hearing for Sir David at the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I thought it would be appropriate to say a few words. We thought he was the right person for the job and strongly approve of him. He has some great predecessors. Sir Michael Scholar, the first chair, challenged the Government over misuse of statistics, and we want the chair to take a strong line with the Government or any other official body that makes light of official statistics. Sir Andrew Dilnot, who is coming to the end of his term, is a great friend and another great communicator with broadcasting and so on in statistical matters. He is an excellent chair. Sir David has two great predecessors to follow. I am sure that he will measure up and do a good job, but I hope that the UK Statistics Authority continues to hold the Government to account if they misbehave.
Question put and agreed to.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

David Lidington: I beg to move,
That:
(1) In Standing Order No. 83S(3)(c), after the paragraph (4A) treated as inserted in
Standing Order No. 83J, insert-
“(4B) In addition, a clause or schedule-
(a) relates exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and
(b) is within devolved legislative competence,
if it does nothing other than set one or more of the main rates of income tax for a
tax year.”;
(2) In Standing Order No. 83S(3)(d), at the end insert “and”;
(3) In Standing Order No. 83S(3), omit sub-paragraph (f), and the “and” preceding it;
(4) In Standing Order No. 83T(2)(c), for “, (7) and (12)” substitute “and (7)”; and
(5) In Standing Order No. 83U(8), for “(4A), (7) and (12)” substitute “(4B) and (7)”.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Scotland Act 2016 received Royal Assent last year. The Act provides the Scottish Parliament with the power to set its own rates and thresholds of income tax. For that reason, the Government announced in the 2016 Budget changes to the structure of income tax intended to ensure that from the Finance Bill 2017 onwards, a clause setting the main rates of income tax would be certified under the English votes procedures. In other words, the consent of hon. Members from constituencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be required for any income tax matters that affected their constituents and that did not affect Scottish taxpayers. The necessary legislative changes to achieve this were made in the Finance Act 2016, and mean that from April this year, these UK main rates will no longer affect Scottish taxpayers.
The technical amendments to Standing Orders before us will ensure that provisions setting the main rates of income tax will be subject to a certification decision by the Speaker now that the Scottish rates of income tax are set by the Scottish Parliament. It will mean that the Standing Orders on which Parliament has already voted will work as originally intended, but now taking account of the new element of the Scotland Act 2016.

Ian Murray: I am grateful to the ever-generous Leader of the House. If the Chancellor were to come to the Dispatch Box and deliver a Finance Bill in which he said that the rates of income tax in England and Wales would alter and that, on that basis a different set of taxes, which were still reserved, would be altered—national insurance, for example—would this English votes for English laws clause be appropriate?

David Lidington: It would be a matter for certification by the Speaker. As in all other such matters as provided for already under our Standing Orders, the Speaker’s test has to be whether the content of the clause or amendment under discussion is devolved to Scotland—or, for that matter, to another part of the United Kingdom—and then, in addition, whether the subject-matter before the House at that time is the sole province of English, Welsh or Northern Irish Members.

Ian Murray: rose—

David Lidington: I shall not give way again; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is important that this small technical change is made in time for this year’s Budget and Finance Bill. As hon. Members know, the Budget statement is due tomorrow so that is why we are bringing this change to the Standing Orders before the House now.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House and I appreciate that he has said that there has to be an amendment to Standing Order 83S. Doubts have been raised as to whether under the current provisions of Standing Orders, the main rate of income tax under the Finance Bill will definitely be certified as English only, particularly when this comes with partially devolving income tax to the Scottish Parliament this year.
However, this is a point of principle and Her Majesty’s Opposition oppose EVEL, which in our view is poorly conceived, a knee-jerk reaction and a constitutional disaster. It risks dividing the UK, rather than allowing devolved Governments to work together for the benefit of the whole of the UK. The Labour leader in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale, has more recently called for a “constitutional convention”, which is the position we support. If the Government had listened to these suggestions, the House would not be in the position of having to amend Standing Orders—both now and possibly in the future. For these reasons, Her Majesty’s Opposition oppose the motion.

Pete Wishart: This is the second time this afternoon that I have debated English votes for English laws on the Floor of the House, and I have to say that I did not expect to be speaking conclusively on EVEL on either of these occasions. It is always a pleasure to address some of the issues surrounding English votes for English laws.
SNP Members see this very much as a technical change to the Standing Orders, and we are quite surprised that we are getting into a general debate about the whole insidious package of English votes for English laws. I totally understand Labour’s concerns, and there are good reasons to be concerned, but it seems a curious environment in which to be having some of these debates about EVEL just now.

Ian Murray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is the very distinguished Chair of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee on which I sit. For clarity, will he re-emphasise that he and his party previously supported English votes for English laws?

Pete Wishart: I am happy to confirm that we believe conclusively that English Members should of course be responsible for all of their own measures, and we agree that it is up to English Members to determine their own legislation and their own policy. We have a very elegant solution for that, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows exactly what territory we are getting into with that. English votes for English laws is simply the wrong  way to do that. As a package, it has been utterly divisive in this House and has been supported by absolutely no one other than the Government themselves, so I think it should be reviewed. I shall come on to that later, and I will allow him to come into the debate again if he thinks it necessary.
Let me address what is before us now. When it comes to these changes to the Standing Orders, we need to recognise the fact that the Scotland Act 2016 devolved to the Scottish Parliament the right to set the main rates of income tax—and thank goodness for that. This was agreed between the party of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my party in the Smith Commission, and we are grateful to know that the rates of income tax are now a responsibility for the Scottish Parliament. That is a good and positive thing, which we very much welcome.
We see the motion as a recognition of our legislative authority on rates of income tax and as a tidying up exercise. If anything—I am loth to concede this to the Leader of the House—it is helpful in clarifying the new arrangements on Standing Orders relating to English votes for English laws. That is why I am surprised that Labour has decided to have a real debate and conversation tonight about EVEL. I am always happy to debate EVEL. I am just surprised that Labour has chosen this evening to conduct such a debate.
The changes take account of the fact that there might, in future, be resolutions or pieces of legislation relating to main income tax rates that are specific to England, or to England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not Scotland, because those matters have been properly devolved. It also makes changes to ensure certainty on who are and who are not Scottish taxpayers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South will remember the tortuous conversations we had on trying to identify who are and who are not Scottish taxpayers. The changes will clarify that a touch and are therefore reasonably helpful in that regard.
There is much about English votes for English laws that SNP Members do not like. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that our issues with EVEL are many and manifest. No one understands what on earth is going on. We just had a Legislative Grand Committee. The bell went off, the Mace went down and the Mace went back up again, and not one Member from England had got to his or her feet to contribute. I have the House of Commons record for contributions in Legislative Grand Committees. In fact, I have spoken twice as much in LGCs as all the English Members put together, yet we were told that EVEL was an absolute necessity, a burning issue that concerned and consumed the shires of Englandshire as they were revolting about me and my hon. Friends coming down and voting on all their precious legislation. And what do we get when they actually have the opportunity to discuss this? Absolute and utter silence! That is why we say again that English votes for English laws are unnecessary. They are burdensome to this House and cumbersome to the way we do business. More than anything else, they divide this House on the basis of nationality and geography. It is on that basis that we profoundly disagree with the whole idea of English votes for English laws.
Now that is all well and good—I am looking at you, Madam Deputy Speaker, getting edgy and tetchy about where I am going with this—but in our view this is not  the place to have this debate. I am surprised at Labour’s lack of understanding about what is being pitched by the Government. As the Leader of the House says, this is a technical change to Standing Orders. I understand that the Labour party will press the motion to a Division. I will support Labour on that as I will oppose English votes for English laws at any opportunity, but I know that the Leader of the House finds it very curious that Labour has decided that this will be a matter of principle on which to vote this evening.
English votes for English laws is an absolute disaster. This is nothing to do with the Leader of the House, bless him; this is all about his predecessor’s charge to bring this forward to the House without any due regard to its impact on our business. It is wrong. It does not work. The House does not require it and it does not satisfy anybody. It does not satisfy us in Scotland. It certainly does not satisfy English Members, who have not contributed one peep to English Legislative Grand Committees. This is an opportunity for the Leader of the House. Yes, go ahead with the technical changes. There is no real issue from us on them, but he will not get the support of the House on EVEL. He has seen all the reviews and reports and it manifestly does not work. It sits awkwardly with the idea of a unitary UK Parliament, where every single Member should be equal. This may be the wrong place to have that fight, but on EVEL we are in the trenches and will support Labour this evening.

Ian Murray: I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) says about how EVEL was brought to this House. It is an unnecessary change to Standing Orders, because the Conservatives and the Government have a majority in both England and Wales, and across the UK. They do not have to use this process to get legislation through. All it has done, as the Conservatives have done consistently over the past few years, is create more division, which the SNP—if SNP Members do not mind me saying—thrives on in this House.
That brings me to the motion and the Standing Order. We have now added to English votes for English laws the issue of income tax. I am delighted that income tax has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It is a shame that members of the Scottish National party, who have spent their entire lives fighting for more powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, failed to use that in their most recent Budget, because they did not want a differential between Scottish and English rates. That is the irony of the position.
Adding the income tax issue to the EVEL provisions, Madam Deputy Speaker, not only undermines the principle of the House, but puts pressure on you, and on Mr Speaker’s office, to determine, when dealing with a Finance Bill, whether a provision should indeed be invoked under the EVEL regulations. That means—this is why I intervened on the Leader of the House earlier—that an individual clause in the Finance Bill could rightly say, “We will set the following rates of income tax as part of the Finance Bill for England and Wales,” but the Chancellor could come to the Dispatch Box tomorrow and, hypothetically, say, “We will reduce income tax by x pence in the pound, and we will pay for it with an increase in national insurance.” The income tax rates in the Finance  Bill will be in a separate clause, and that will then have to be determined by Mr Speaker and his office, but the national insurance increases will be in another part of the Bill that will not be subject to EVEL.

Kirsty Blackman: I am loth to bring this up, but I am holding a copy of the Standing Orders of February 2016, which specifically mention the Scottish rate of income tax. That was already in the EVEL Standing Orders presented by the Leader of the House previously. This is just a technical change in the language. Has the hon. Gentleman read the Standing Order?

Ian Murray: It seems to me that SNP Members agree with English votes for English laws and do not want to defend the principle that we are against them, or they want to vote with the Government this evening, or they want to abstain. I am not quite sure what they are doing. However, if I heard the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire correctly, he is going to vote with the Labour party against the motion. I am not sure where the hon. Lady stands on that particular argument, but the point I am trying to make is simply about division and unnecessary complication in the House. The Government’s majority will see any Finance Bill that they wish to present before the next general election—whenever that may be—through the House, because that is the way in which Governments and majorities work. If the Government have a problem with their own Back Benchers when they are trying to change income tax rates, that is entirely fine.
The hon. Lady was right to raise the point that she has just made, but let me gently say to her that we wanted to debate this matter today because it is the first opportunity that we have had to return to the EVEL regulations. It does not make sense for it to be possible to invoke this procedure in the context of income tax.
That brings us to the great repeal Bill and what will come back from the European Union. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has raised that issue on a number of occasions. What will happen then? Will more technical changes be made by means of statutory instruments and Standing Orders to determine whether provisions are subject to English votes for English laws? We do not even know where some of the powers will lie when they are repatriated. It is important to note that none of these issues were examined in depth at the time of the McKay commission’s proposals. There was no consideration of the impact and the knock-on effect of the provisions on the way in which the House operates.
On four separate occasions, under the premiership of Gordon Brown, the Scottish National party asked for English votes for English laws. In fact, they used the term “EVEL”. Then, after 2015—I do not know what happened in 2015; they must have won more seats—SNP Members became opposed to English votes for English laws. Now they are reluctantly voting against this measure. I think the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire just said that he profoundly disagreed with it as a matter of principle, but was not sure whether he would vote against it. He seemed to be saying that these were merely technical changes.
On top of all that, the greatest anomaly in all the regulations, including the one that is before us now, is that even when the hon. Gentleman has sprung up in that strange Committee where the Mace goes down,  Madam Deputy Speaker moves to the Chair in order to take the proceedings and no one speaks, and when he has—invariably, and quite rightly—railed against English votes for English laws, SNP Members do not vote when they are allowed to do so, on Third Reading. They are, in practice, demonstrating English votes for English laws in any event.
I remember the circumstances surrounding the housing Bill where the EVEL provisions were put in place for the first time in this House. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly railed against EVEL, and we supported him on that, but then the SNP Members did not vote on the Third Reading of the Bill in any case, when they were entitled to, so I am not quite sure where the principles of that lie, or whether or not the hon. Gentleman should have been voting on the housing Bill.

Patrick Grady: Of course we support the principle of English votes for English laws and its ultimate logical conclusion of independence, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a difference between supporting that concept in principle and this dog’s breakfast of Standing Orders that were brought forward in such a rush after 2015? It is these procedures that we have an issue with, not the principle of English votes for English laws.

Ian Murray: And that is quite right: it is a dog’s breakfast, which is why I am so surprised that the hon. Gentleman’s spokesperson on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, did not rail against this particular dog’s breakfast, but instead welcomed this technical change and is not quite sure if he will vote for it or against it or abstain on it this evening. If it is a dog’s breakfast and a matter of principle, let us try to fight these changes at every possible turn, of which this is a great and ideal opportunity in this House this evening.
I will conclude by saying what the alternative is for the Government. Let us take away all these changes to Standing Orders—the mess that the Leader of the House is making of the constitution—and get to a point whereby we have a set of constitutional arrangements in this House that work for the UK. We have called for a constitutional convention that would look at all these issues—the House of Lords and everything we do in terms of the constitution—and do it through a sensible and pragmatic approach, where we can look at everything in the round and come out with something the public want. It is time we started bringing the country together: no more division, no more separating different classes of MPs, no more bringing Standing Orders to this House that merely set one MP off against another. Let us work together to try and find a set of circumstances that work for the entirety of this House. It seems to me that when this Conservative Government talk about taking back control, they are not talking about taking back control to the people of this country; they are talking about taking back control for themselves, and that is the principle behind all these English votes for English laws.
This is a dog’s breakfast and it does not work, as has been highlighted time and again in this House. It is a waste of this House’s time to have to go through the  process of a Standing Committee to address whether or not we have English votes for English laws. It is inelegant and we will be voting against this this evening, to send a strong message that we as Members of Parliament are all one in this House, and the Government must go back and think again about what they are doing to the procedures in this famous House of Commons.

Sylvia Hermon: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise my voice in opposition once again to the procedure known as English votes for English laws. The acronym EVEL seems very appropriate from my point of view, if I may say so. It is deeply divisive, demeaning and humiliating for MPs from Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish constituencies to be told repeatedly that this is the United Kingdom, given that although when the Prime Minister took over the reins of power from David Cameron on 13 July last year she spoke about wanting to bind together the parts of the United Kingdom, the continued use of EVEL certainly does not do that.
I have a very high regard for the Leader of the House. In a previous role he was a spokesperson for Northern Ireland—a spokesman, rather; I will allow him to be a spokesman—and he will therefore be very sensitive indeed to how divisive English votes for English laws and its continuation in this House is, particularly after Brexit. None of us in this House should be under any illusions as to how the circumstances in Northern Ireland have changed. That is evidenced by the Northern Ireland Assembly election on Thursday. A reduced number of MLAs was returned—90—and the Democratic Unionist party, which dominated for so long, now has a majority of just one over Sinn Féin, the republican party. Sinn Féin’s vote went up dramatically. I am not speaking for Sinn Féin—I am speaking as a Unionist—but I am reflecting to the House the seriousness of the situation. With the greatest respect to the Prime Minister, for whom I have great respect, her first call of duty yesterday morning should have been to Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, to reassure the people there that it was firmly within the United Kingdom. That opportunity has now passed.
It behoves this Government to look at ways and means of binding together a very disunited United Kingdom post-Brexit. With the greatest respect to the Leader of the House and to the Government, the continuation of the procedure known as English votes for English laws is counterproductive. It unnecessarily drives a wedge between MPs in this House. The Conservative Government have a majority. Indeed, they increased it in a recent by-election, and their new Member was greeted with great applause last Wednesday. I congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on her election.
I urge the Leader of the House and his Government to take a long, hard look at the consequences of perpetuating the procedure of English votes for English laws, not just through the issue before the House tonight but when the great repeal Bill comes before the House. He will know that I asked him, in a written question, whether Standing Orders—including the EVEL procedure—would be applied to the great repeal Bill, and I had a perfect parliamentary reply. It told me virtually nothing, except that the great repeal Bill would be the subject of Standing Orders.
The Government can no longer turn their eyes away from what is happening in Northern Ireland. They must take seriously the consequences of last week’s Northern Ireland Assembly election. One way of doing that successfully would be to bring back equality and respect in this House for all Members who stood at the general election on the same day. I stood in the general election in Northern Ireland. I did not explain to my electorate who returned me—because I did not know that I would have to—that my vote would be disregarded when the Government decided to apply English votes for English laws. This is wrong. Let us please wake up to the consequences of Brexit, and to the consequences of perpetuating the divisions within our country by using EVEL when it is wholly unnecessary to do so.
The only kind words that I can add are to commend those who provided the explanatory memorandum to the motion on the Order Paper. The motion is so threadbare that it is impossible to understand what aspect of Standing Orders we were to debate, so I commend the officials who drafted the explanatory memorandum. I would have liked the Leader of the House to take the opportunity to do so as well. Perhaps he will do so in his closing remarks. Without that explanatory memorandum, no one—but no one—would have been able to understand what we were voting for without a crystal ball. That is inappropriate. We need to understand what we are going to vote on. My message is loud and clear to the Leader of the House, whom I respect, and I expect him to come back at some stage, having considered—with his boss, the Prime Minister—how we in this Parliament are going to bind up the wounds that undoubtedly exist throughout this country.

Kirsty Blackman: I first saw these proposed changes to Standing Orders on the Order Paper last Tuesday and, as any competent, capable parliamentarian would do, I decided to find out what they meant. I spoke to the Clerks and to the more senior members in my group. I also went to the Leader of the House’s office and asked his officials to produce an explanatory memorandum so that we could understand the changes that were being made and the reasons behind them. Having spoken to the Clerks, I realised that these were in fact fairly innocuous changes that were intended to tighten up the language.
I am against English votes for English laws. I do not like the way the arrangements have been implemented through Standing Orders. I do not think that that was the right way to bring forward such a significant constitutional change in this House. It has shown up at least one technical problem with the drafting. That is a concern, and it would not have arisen had we had proper scrutiny and primary legislation to make the change. I am against EVEL because of how it has been implemented. I am against the fact that significant decisions can be taken on things that have a major impact on Scotland’s public finances and on Barnett consequentials without Scottish Members being able to take a full part in the debate and have a full say in the votes. That is not right, and the change was not an appropriate way to implement EVEL.
We were reassured by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), that Scottish Members would be able  to have a full say in the financial processes and the departmental budgets in the estimates process, but the estimates process is utterly rubbish. It does not allow MPs in this House, whether Back-Bench Conservatives or anybody on the Opposition side of the House, to scrutinise departmental budgets. The only people who have a say over departmental budgets are those in the Treasury. The Treasury puts them forward in the form of estimates, which we are not allowed to debate. We were promised that we would still have our say under EVEL on all the financial implications through the estimates process. If the Government are to change EVEL, instead of the change they are making today they should make meaningful changes to allow Scottish MPs to have a say on things that have a financial impact on Scotland’s public finances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that income tax has been “properly devolved”, which is an interesting phrase, particularly in this context. The Standing Order allows for decisions around the main rates of income tax, which are wholly devolved, to be classed under EVEL. I do not like EVEL at all and I do not think that we should have EVEL, but if we are going to have it, it is probably sensible to have it on something that does not have direct impact on Scotland’s public finances.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned the great repeal Bill, which is important in this context. The great repeal Bill cannot be subject to EVEL, and the Leader of the House should bring a further amendment to the Standing Orders or commit to suspend the Standing Order when we discuss the great repeal Bill, because it is not appropriate for Standing Orders relating to EVEL to apply during the great repeal Bill. Scottish Members should absolutely have a say at all its stages. We are being dragged out of the European Union against our will, and we should have a say in the great repeal Bill.

Patrick Grady: My hon. Friend is making an important point. We have always been worried about the EVEL Standing Orders placing the Chair in an invidious position. Will that not increase if the Scotland Office, and the Government as a whole, cannot be clear about what powers will be devolved to Scotland in the event of Brexit? The Scotland Act sets out that if something it not reserved, it is devolved, but if the UK Government start to legislate, how on earth will the Chair know whether something should be subject to the EVEL process?

Kirsty Blackman: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly clever point. The waters are muddy, because the Secretary of State for Scotland has not been clear about what will actually be devolved. He keeps saying that more things will be devolved, but he has been utterly unclear about whether agriculture and fishing will be devolved. The Chair will be in an even worse position when making decisions about the great repeal Bill due to the mud in the water.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire and the shadow Leader of the House said that this is a matter of principle. I get that. I am against EVEL and do not think it should have been implemented in this way. We should not have a constitutional convention; we should have independence. If the Labour party is so  concerned about voting against the Government on matters of principle, I suggest that the one to have started with would have been the article 50 Brexit vote.

David Lidington: With the leave of the House, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) enjoys huge respect on both sides of the House for the way in which she has championed peace and political reconciliation in Northern Ireland. We all take seriously her concerns about the current fragile political situation there. Both the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are working as hard as they can to bring about reconciliation, and they will want to listen to her views and the views of other Northern Ireland colleagues in the days and weeks ahead.
The hon. Members for North Down and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) both asked about the application of the Standing Order No. 83 tests to the repeal Bill. One reason for my reluctance to go into great detail is simply that the repeal Bill has not yet been published. I can give a measure of reassurance that the repeal Bill will seek to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and convert European law into UK law, which is not a matter that could relate only to England or only to England and Wales. It therefore strikes me as very unlikely that EVEL would apply to the Bill, and even more so when one considers the tests that Mr Speaker is required under the Standing Orders to apply to Bills, or to clauses of Bills, when considering the application of Standing Order No. 83.
To be treated under the EVEL procedures, a Bill or a clause has to deal with a devolved matter—in most cases, the procedures apply to matters devolved to Scotland. The repeal Bill will address the cessation of the application to the UK of an international treaty, and international treaties, as the whole House knows, are expressly reserved to the United Kingdom Government and Parliament in all three devolution settlements.
It is difficult to see how the EVEL procedures could apply to matters under the repeal Bill, but I will be cautious about that until the day when the repeal Bill is published and everybody can inspect it.

Kirsty Blackman: I appreciate that the Leader of the House is giving us more clarity on the issue than we have previously received, but I still ask him seriously to consider suspending the Standing Order when the great repeal Bill comes to the House in order to ensure that it cannot possibly be subject to the EVEL procedures.

David Lidington: I take note of the hon. Lady’s representation.
It is always good to hear familiar riffs. Like putting Eric Clapton on the turntable and hearing the golden oldies from one’s younger days, the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is familiar to me. He puts his finger on the truth that I am not sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) or the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), really grasped. This is a narrow, technical change.
On the question before the House, it is true that all UK MPs will still be able to continue voting on Budgets and on all aspects of income tax. But English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs will have an opportunity expressly to approve matters that primarily affect their constituencies, such as the main rates of income tax. That simply reflects the fact that it is Members of the Scottish Parliament who vote on devolved matters, including the main rates of income tax, in so far as they affect Scottish taxpayers.
Why are we making this change? We are making the change because of a degree of uncertainty in the current Standing Orders when we have to take into account the implications of the Scotland Act 2016. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North pointed out, our Standing Orders already provide for certification in relation to Finance Bills, so we are not debating some new extension of the EVEL procedures. The 2016 Act presents us with a particular problem. The main rates of income tax are paid by residents of the United Kingdom who are not subject to the Scottish main rate of income tax. That means that in future no Scottish taxpayer will be affected by the UK main rate, but there is a theoretical possibility that the main rate of income tax could affect an individual who is not a Scottish taxpayer but has some connections to Scotland—perhaps they have a second home there. Because of that possibility, it was unclear whether, subsequent to the 2016 Act, a clause that set the main rates of income tax would relate exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and therefore trigger a vote under the English laws procedures according to the existing Standing Orders.
The narrow amendment we are considering will remove the element of doubt and ensure what was always intended when the House approved the Standing Orders, the 2016 Act and the measures in last year’s Finance Act—namely, that a vote on the main rates of income tax will attract an EVEL vote. This will ensure that English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have the final say on setting income tax rates when no Scottish taxpayer will be affected. That seems to be a perfectly fair way to proceed, so I invite the House to support the amendment.
Question put.
The House divided:
Ayes 287, Noes 239.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITION - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1995 AND 2011 PENSION ACTS

Chi Onwurah: It is particularly appropriate that, on the eve of International Women’s Day, I present this petition from the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign in Newcastle upon Tyne Central, and many men, calling for fair transitional arrangements for 1950s-born women affected by changes to the state pension age.
In my recent Westminster Hall debate, I highlighted how these changes disproportionately affect working-class women of that generation, who are more likely to have started work at 15, more likely to be in manual trades, which take a greater toll on the body as it ages, more likely to die younger and less likely to have private pensions. There are many such women in Newcastle and across the country who wish to highlight the hardship, stress and worry they face as a consequence.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Newcastle Upon Tyne Central,
Declares that as a result of the way in which the 1995 Pension Act and the 2011 Pension Act were implemented, women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age; further that hundreds of thousands of women have had significant changes imposed on them with little or no personal notice; further that implementation took place faster than promised; further that this gave no time to make alternative pension plans; and further that retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to make fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s (on or after 6 April 1951) who have unfairly borne the burden of the increase to the State Pension Age.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002024]

RURAL POLICING AND HARE COURSING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Spencer.)

John Glen: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to Mr Speaker for granting this Adjournment debate on rural policing and hare coursing. It is particularly important that we discuss this issue now, as we must reflect on, and learn lessons from, the most recent hare coursing season, which is coming to a close.
Hare coursing, poaching and the surrounding issues of antisocial behaviour should be matters of great concern for this House, both as individual crimes and examples of the challenges associated with policing rural communities. I have been struck by the number of hon. Members who have approached me following notification of the debate this evening. In particular, I would like to draw the House’s attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who will be unable to contribute, but I understand she has a strong interest in some of the issues I am about to raise.
We must carefully consider two key issues. First, we need to recognise the damage sustained by farmers to their properties and their wellbeing, as many are made to feel intimidated by those carrying out these heinous acts. Secondly, we need carefully to consider the police’s approach to this problem and what tools are necessary to ensure that the law is effectively enforced.

John Howell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on both points. On the first point, farmers can, of course, dig ditches and barricade their fences, but many in my constituency are afraid to undertake that work in case there is retaliation against their equipment as a result.

John Glen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As somebody who used to live in his constituency, I empathise strongly with the concerns he raises. I will set out similar examples of my constituents who have shared the same experience.
My first and principal concern is the threat that hare coursing poses to farming communities. Hare coursers are not simply a few individuals quietly chasing hares on unused land: they are, most often, large groups who show serious contempt for the law. This results in a number of significant problems for my constituents. Farms are vandalised, people are intimidated, and often farmers are isolated and unable to count on the law for timely protection.
The National Farmers Union has found that hare coursing is now the most common crime experienced by farmers in Wiltshire. That has a number of troubling implications for rural communities.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that hare coursers marauding across farmers’ land in their vehicles not merely cause an unsightly mess but vandalise livelihoods, and should be dealt with accordingly?

John Glen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention: I absolutely agree. Again, I will come on  to set out more examples, and give the Minister some suggestions on what could be done to deal with the problem.
I want to outline some of the implications of hare coursing. First, when entering these private lands, hare coursers and poachers regularly cause criminal damage to gates, hedgerows, fences, and growing crops.This creates financial costs arising from repairs to the damage and the need to increase security infrastructure, probably involving CCTV cameras. It also wastes a huge number of man hours as farmers are forced to look for damage and repair it. This is extremely time consuming, frustrating and upsetting for many farmers, whose land is the single most important asset of their business and their livelihood.
My constituent Chris Swanton, whose family have farmed on his farm for several generations, has regularly experienced at first-hand on his farm in South Wiltshire the problems I have described. He wrote to me saying:
“I get upset because I am very passionate about my farm and I have a certain amount of pride in the appearance of my fields and crops. I find it gutting and very depressingto drive around my farm after hare coursers have been all across my fields.”
It is totally unacceptable for farmers like Chris who have worked 80 hours a week preparing seed beds and planting crops to find them ruined by mindless vandals. His experiences are by no means unique, as this happens right across my constituency, and, from what colleagues have been telling me in the past few days, over large tracts of rural England.
The impact for victims is not merely economic. Many face unjustifiable intimidation and anti-social behaviour on their doorsteps. Hare coursers will often threaten and behave violently towards landowners who attempt to challenge them or collect evidence to report to the police.

Andrew Murrison: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Glen: I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.

Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to contribute briefly to this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour on bringing this matter to the House’s attention. Does he agree that these are not good people, and that these groups probably contain within them individuals who are intent also on acquisitive crime? Not only are they violent people, but they are probably also eyeing up the property of our rural constituents, which, as he will know, is very much under threat at the moment from bespoke criminality focused on thieving to order. The suspicion is that this population and the hare coursing population are very often one and the same thing.

John Glen: Those are characteristically wise words from my hon. Friend and neighbour, and I absolutely agree. This speaks to some of the suggestions that I am going to make about the nature of resourcing of rural policing. I am delighted that the Minister is here to hear those words and, I hope, respond positively.
Lincolnshire police found that the majority of persons involved in hare coursing in their county already had the criminal histories that my hon. Friend refers to, and  often travelled for hundreds of miles to participate. This is particularly distressing for farming communities, who are genuinely vulnerable. The average age of farmers is now 59, and they often work alone, meaning that there are few or no witnesses to the crimes that are perpetrated on their land. Farmers know too well the repercussions of trying to deter coursers from their own land—from targeted break-ins and theft on their farms, to extremes such as arson and direct physical attacks.
Another of my constituents, who understandably did not want to be named, lives on a farm with their teenage daughter. While on their own land, the constituent was confronted by three men with dogs who threatened that they would “do over” their car and carve up their crops.My constituent’s daughter now worries for her parent’s safety and is concerned that the coursers know where they live and what their car looks like.
It is completely unacceptable that constituents do not feel safe on their own land, and these are not isolated cases. In January the BBC reported that violence and intimidation have escalated in the recent hare coursing season. One farmer, who also wished not to be named, fearing for his own safety, stated, “They would kill us if they could”.
I emphasise to the Minister that, for rural communities and farmers in particular, hare coursing is not simply a nuisance; it is a serious blight on livelihoods and wellbeing.
I want to turn to how we can ensure that there is an effective and coherent response by the police and the magistracy. In preparing for this debate, I was struck by the exasperation of constituents who tell me that they regularly reach out to the police but feel as if nothing is being done and that they are fighting hare coursers on their own. One constituent remarked that his tactic of digging ditches around the farm to stop the coursers’ vehicles felt almost medieval—building a moat to prevent the enemy from entering.
I pay tribute to Wiltshire police force. Its officers do very difficult work in challenging circumstances, and they should be commended for the innovative steps that they are taking to improve their response to rural crime. The general quality of their work was acknowledged by last week’s report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, ranking them good across the board. Wiltshire police have put in place a number of initiatives, including funding six dedicated wildlife crime officers, and I welcome the news that further funding has been secured to train another five.
I recognise the apparent logic of weighting police funding by population size and demography, but cases such as hare coursing demonstrate that rural areas require specialist resources to ensure that isolated and sparser populated communities do not feel abandoned by law enforcement.

Martin Vickers: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. The rural part of my constituency is served by Humberside police, which is a predominantly urban force, and the farming and rural community feels somewhat neglected. Does he agree that it is equally important that the rural community, wherever it is situated, is suitably prioritised by the police?

John Glen: I absolutely recognise the situation described by my hon. Friend. It is particularly true of hybrid  constabularies that have to serve significant urban populations, but the rural element needs to be properly recognised.
May I urge the Minister to take those factors into consideration in his deliberations on the new police funding formula? Although Wiltshire is the 15th largest county geographically, it receives the fourth lowest budget from Government. The resources needed to tackle rural crime must be reflected in allocations within the overall funding envelope. That will require him to challenge his officials on the different spreadsheets that they put in front of him and make sure that the pockets of rural need are properly reflected in the review’s outcome.

Matt Warman: Is not the real challenge faced by rural police forces the fact that they have to deal not only with issues such as hare coursing, which is a form of organised crime, but with those challenges that are also faced by urban policing, including changing tactics for cybercrime and domestic violence? That is a perfect storm and it requires special attention.

John Glen: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who once again comes up with a sensible analysis and a sense of how we need better to join up the different attempts to tackle this very difficult problem.

Robert Jenrick: Is not one of the issues the lack of neighbourhood policing in some rural areas? In the northern part of my constituency, in Bassetlaw, we have a long-standing police officer, Bill Bailey. He knows the lanes, he knows many of the criminals and he knows how to respond to and sort out such crimes. He is also fluent in the law in this area. All too often, when officers such as Bill retire, as he will do in October, they are replaced by police officers drawn from a much wider area. His replacement is likely to be drawn from urban areas such as Worksop and Retford, where crimes are very different. Response times will diminish, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) has said, it is difficult for people to be certain that police officers who understand the rurality of the area will be able to get out and sort out the problems.

John Glen: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. Like many Conservative Members, I gained some familiarity with my hon. Friend’s constituency in the weeks running up to his election. I would not want to comment on the specific example that he gave, but it is absolutely key that we have the right resources in the right places.
I return to the specific issue of hare coursing. I believe that it is both a policing and a judicial issue, and I want to raise three policy concerns that I hope the Minister will reflect on to ensure that constituencies such as Salisbury and south Wiltshire can effectively deal with hare coursers and the many disruptions and problems that I have just described. First, I ask the Minister to consider creating a more widespread infrastructure for seizing and rehousing the dogs used in such criminal activities. Will he look—perhaps not personally—into how the police organise themselves in that regard? Hare coursing dogs are high-value assets worth tens of thousands of pounds. I think that the threat of dogs being taken or rehomed, and therefore losing their value, will deter hare coursers. To be able to seize dogs, the police must have the appropriate kennels  and facilities to look after them. In Wiltshire, despite a large number of hare coursing incidents, we do not have that vital infrastructure in place.

Paul Flynn: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Can he give us some idea of the extent of the hare coursing, badger baiting and illegal foxhunting that take place, and the percentage of those incidents for which people have been prosecuted in the recent past?

John Glen: Actually, I can give the hon. Gentleman some of those statistics, if he will just wait a few minutes.
In terms of legislation, hare coursing offences sometimes fall under the Game Act 1831, which does not provide the powers of seizure and forfeiture of dogs and vehicles that the Hunting Act 2004 provides. Updating the 1831 Act could rectify that issue and allow more hunting dogs to be seized. In addition, if we gave police the ability to recover kennelling costs for seized dogs in a way similar to the process for seized vehicles, we could make that deterrent more financially viable.
Secondly, I hope the Minister will consider the penalties given to those guilty of poaching and hare coursing. Currently, the maximum possible penalty is unlimited. Despite that, the House of Commons Library reports that between 2010 and 2015, the average fine for offences under the Hunting Act was just £256.43. Wiltshire police told me that it had a recent case in which three males were sent to court for offences under the Night Poaching Act 1828. They had dogs, lamps and a gutting knife in their possession, and they had travelled some 100 miles from Wales to Wiltshire. The three men received a fine of just £50 each. The men were persistent offenders who were known to the police, and they were stopped again just three days after their appearance in court. Are we honestly surprised that when hare coursers have the opportunity to earn thousands of pounds betting on their illegal activities, such small fines do nothing to deter them?It is nothing short of outrageous that such individuals can simply give no comment at interview, go to court, plead guilty, accept a fine of £50 or £100 and return to the fields the very next day. Magistrates must be encouraged to use the full extent of the penalties available to them. As a former magistrate, I am very aware of the guidance that sometimes comes out, and I feel that it needs to be updated. Will the Minister commit to working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to examine such matters and ensure that sentencing guidance in this area is reviewed?
The third and final issue is conviction rates. On the figures I have, there were 2,169 reported incidents of hare coursing in Lincolnshire during the six months between September 2015 and March 2016. Some 176 men were charged or reported for summons, but only 25 were actually convicted, which is less than one in seven. Of the 176 individuals charged, 117 cases were discontinued, usually when witnesses declined to give statements for fear of reprisals. Even if CCTV cameras are used—presumably at the farmers’ expense—farmers are obliged to declare that they have individually put in an evidence-capture system, therefore putting their name on the record and risking retaliation through some of the apps I have described. That situation is simply blocking access to justice. Until the Government send a clear  message that farmers will be properly protected and perpetrators brought to justice, the unwillingness to provide evidence will only increase. Will the Minister work with local police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that farmers are not deterred from coming forward because the evidence they are required to gather is too costly or cumbersome to obtain or puts them at risk?
In conclusion, hare coursing is a serious issue, and we must not underestimate the financial and emotional harm it inflicts on vulnerable rural communities, and on farmers in particular. Despite pockets of good practice, more must be done to stop the increasing prevalence across the country. I am concerned that the overall framework governing policing and sentencing does not currently act as a sufficient deterrent. May I urge the Minister to look carefully at the measures I have suggested? We must send a clear message to hare coursers that they will no longer be able to get off the hook with paltry sentences and very low conviction rates. What they are doing is wrong, and we must not allow it to continue in the way currently experienced.

Alan Haselhurst: It is very handy to have the opportunity of an extended debate, which has shown that a number of colleagues are concerned about this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has done us a service by finding an opportunity to raise the matter.
I do not need to be reminded that I have been a Member of Parliament for a very rural constituency for a long time. I cannot recall circumstances that are now regularly being reported to me ever having been raised with me before. I am not naive enough to believe that hare coursing did not take place in former years, but it now seems to have achieved epidemic proportions in my area, with village after village now reporting incidents.
The police are stretched. Whatever the force available to the chief constable of Essex—indeed, this applies to any other constabulary—it is bound to be deployed in areas of higher crime than in areas of low crime. The district of Uttlesford and rural Chelmsford are areas of low crime, but that does not mean that there is no crime. This form of crime, which has now started to surge, if that is not too strong a word to describe what is happening, is particularly difficult for the police to cope with. There is obviously great mobility on the part of the offenders, and if we are to get a grip on this type of activity, there needs to be co-operation between police forces.

John Howell: In my constituency, the police have set up surveillance areas, but this has become a bit of a cat-and-mouse game, because they are spotted while setting up the surveillance areas and the hare coursers simply move to another field on another farm. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that as a problem?

Alan Haselhurst: Absolutely; on the basis of reports I am getting from constituents, I am beginning to ask myself “where next?” .
For historical reasons, Essex has always felt underfunded, and if any of my Essex colleagues were present for  tonight’s debate, they would heartily agree, because we are always pressing for more resources. This is now a new situation that has to be confronted.

Matt Warman: The chief constable of Essex was recently quoted on Radio Lincolnshire complaining that Lincolnshire’s success at dealing with hare coursing meant that Essex was being placed under even greater strain. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that underlines the fact that we have to work together to tackle this problem?

Alan Haselhurst: I absolutely agree, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in the right terms to indicate that this has to be a co-ordinated approach.
Let me add one further point about the impact of this activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury spoke mainly about the farming community, which is absolutely right, but there have been some particularly odious practices performed in my constituency that affect not the farming community, but ordinary residents in villages. Mutilated corpses of hares are being laid on people’s cars or lawns, and parts of these dead bodies are being draped round the handles of doors. This is sickening, and small children will obviously be more vulnerable to the horror of seeing that kind of thing. We are getting well beyond the thought that this is some illegal sport that is far removed from everybody. Yes, this affects the farmers, as my hon. Friend clearly said—my farmers have spoken to me about it, too—but there is also this extra dimension, which makes the problem truly appalling and underlines the need for special attention to deal with it.
If this activity has not been as prevalent in former years and is now becoming a phenomenon to which we are all giving witness here today, perhaps we need to stamp down on it in order to quell it once and for all. That requires special attention, special resources and special drive of policy.

Simon Hoare: I echo the thanks and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on raising this important issue. Although some people might view the debate and the problem as merely an issue of animal welfare and wildlife crime, which of course it is, as others have suggested, it goes much wider than that. We are talking about vandalism of property; loss of income for farmer and landowner; theft, atrocity and intimidation of farmers, their families and in some instances gamekeepers and others employed on estates; and a lot of road traffic issues, including the driving of unlicensed and uninsured vehicles, driving while disqualified and so forth. This all adds up to the picture of criminality that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) alluded to in his intervention.
My constituency is easily split between east and west. The western part of North Dorset is the Blackmore Vale, which has heavy clay, and nobody would try to course on that. The hares do not like it, and it is too heavy to make a form; sometimes even a 4x4 will get stuck in the clay of Blackmore Vale. The Cranborne Chase on the eastern side of my constituency, however, is beautiful, undulating chalk downland, very similar to  the area at the border with Wiltshire. It is, of course, an ideal and fertile ground for illegal hare coursing, and it happens on all too regular a basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) talked about the chief constable of Essex blaming the robustness of his colleague in Lincolnshire for transporting a problem across a county border. In Dorset, we have also seen an element of that, given the significant success that the chief constable and officers of Wiltshire have had in clamping down in that county. They have merely translocated over the border to us.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury said with regard to value of the sighthound used for this purpose. I was told by one of my local police officers that, having confiscated a telephone from a hare courser, he looked—I could not tell the House why—at the gentleman’s photo album on his phone. He had 184 photographs: 20 of his family and 164 of his dog. That, I think, demonstrates the importance and value that these people place on their livestock. The problem is exactly as my hon. Friend suggested. Local authorities have pulled away from taking stray dogs off the street and have contracted it out, often on narrowly defined contracts. The police do not have kennels to house these dogs. I would prefer a far more robust approach, not just in the provision of kennels but in the removal and permanent confiscation of dogs, and their rehousing.

Robert Jenrick: Last year in Scotland was, I think, the first time that a hare courser or a group of hare coursers were prosecuted successfully and imprisoned using DNA evidence taken from a confiscated dog. We have heard in the debate about the scale and importance of these crimes, so perhaps the police elsewhere in the country should look to take that forward.

Simon Hoare: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The deployment of technologies that may have been advanced for other purposes can easily be used for exactly the sort of incident my hon. Friend suggests.
I want to draw the attention of the House, if I may, to the excellent work undertaken by the Dorset constabulary in this area under the leadership of Martyn Underhill, our police and crime commissioner, and the chief constable. After discussions with me as a Member of Parliament, we now have a dedicated rural team—and not in name only. The team has the right vehicles—4x4s and Polarises—telephones, equipment and so on. It is doing a fantastic job. It was my pleasure, if that is the word, to join them on a night operation ranging from 8 o’clock in the evening to two o’clock in the morning, where a collaboration of three police forces—officers from Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire—came together with local farmers and gamekeepers. I was obviously the “heavy” man brought in for intimidation. We drove around the countryside using intelligence and telephones to identify where people might be, and disrupting activity as it was about to unfold: the interception and interruption of illegal activity taking place in our countryside.
A number of hon. Friends mentioned intimidation. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury provided statistics on the number of people brought to court and the rather lenient slap-on-the-wrist fines. If someone is prepared to wager £10,000 on one greyhound getting a  hare, a fine of £276 is but a drop in the ocean. I wonder, as I often do in these circumstances, whether our local magistrates feel intimidated, given the reputation of a lot of people involved in hare coursing knowing no bounds to the retribution they wish to see. I hope our magistrates are made of strong and robust stuff, but that might not necessarily always be the case.
I again congratulate Dorset constabulary on its work. I echo entirely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury that the funding requirement is, as so often in our rural areas, very bespoke. If one talked to councillors in Manchester, Bristol or Birmingham about rural crime on farms as a result of hare coursing, they would probably scratch their heads and look very bemused, but it causes a great loss of income, great degradation of the countryside, a vast amount of cruelty and a huge amount of illegality. These niche issues that need to be policed with robustness, intelligence and co-ordination do need to find, in our rural policing and its funding formula, must identify how best to marry funds with the very clear demands elucidated by my hon. Friend in what has been an excellent debate.

Brandon Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing the debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions to it. The number of Members present, as well as the number who have spoken, illustrates the importance of this issue to rural communities throughout the country.
I shall not detain the House for long, because in principle I agree with what has been said, but I want to go into a little more detail about the position. It is clear from what Members have said this evening that the issue is of concern to rural communities, but I have also heard of their concern at first hand. I am very clear about the fact that people should not have to experience the crimes that have been described; nor should they ever feel threatened, victimised or harassed, whether they are witnesses or actual victims. Anything of that nature is wholly unacceptable, and I expect the police to act in such circumstances.
As has already been mentioned, the Hunting Act 2004 came into effect on 18 February 2005. Under that Act, an individual who is found guilty of illegal hunting or hare coursing can be liable for an unlimited fine. Let me, at this point, respond to the second request made by my hon. Friend. I noted his comments about the level of the fines that are issued by magistrates courts, and I can assure him that I will liaise with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to establish what guidance is given to the courts and the Sentencing Council about the use of that power. The criminals—and they are abhorrent criminals—who behave in this way should be sent the message that such behaviour will not be tolerated.
Section 30 of the Game Act 1831 gives the police the power to seize and detain vehicles taking part in hare coursing until a court hearing takes place. The police also have powers to deal with other criminal offences. When I visited Lincolnshire recently at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), there was clear evidence of the ability to deal with all the crimes being committed. As we have heard this evening, hare coursing is an offence in itself, but other offences are potentially committed within it,  such as aggravated trespass, abuse, intimidation, harassment and criminal damage. All those offences are prosecutable in their own right.
As one of my officials pointed out when we were in Lincolnshire, the police may not be able to catch someone in the act of hare coursing because of the speed that is involved. However, through CCTV and other means, they often discover number plates of vehicles that are not taxed or not MOT-ed. They can act on the basis of such an incident in itself, without necessarily catching someone in the act or putting farmers in a position where they have reason to be fearful. I emphasise that the police have a range of options enabling us to be smart about prosecution and cracking down on behaviour of this kind.
Decisions on the use of resources and on law enforcement in individual areas is of course a matter for chief constables. It is for them to determine their priorities and policies, along with their police and crime commissioners. I believe that the policing plan of the Wiltshire police and crime commissioner was published today. PCCs such as Lincolnshire’s Marc Jones want to get a grip on issues such as this, and I commend them for appreciating that in representing their communities they are understanding what is important to those communities. That demonstrates why devolving powers to locally accountable, locally elected PCCs was such an important step.
Members have mentioned funding this evening. Let me remind them that we are firmly committed to reforming the current police funding arrangements, because they are out of date. We want a fairer system that is up to date and, importantly, is transparently able to reflect the way in which crime is being dealt with locally. We are at the moment taking forward a detailed engagement with the sector itself—police, chief constables, police and crime commissioners, and experts and academics in the field. I have met a range of PCCs and chief constables to discuss the issues they think should be covered. A number of them, including representatives whose Members have spoken this evening, have raised the issue of making sure that the costs and challenges that rural policing faces are reflected in the formula. No new formula will be implemented without public consultation; there will be a full process of that, but it will come at the end of this substantial piece of work that we are doing, to make sure that it is fully informed. I have met the PCC for Wiltshire, who has made this point about his own force very directly to me, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury.
I also appreciate that there are complaints both from communities and Members that the police are not always doing enough to deal with the criminals involved in this activity. As I have said, we need to be smart. We need to drive this through our PCCs and our local chief constables, to make sure that local police use all the tools at their disposal to deal with criminal behaviour, including any challenge about the speed with which people move. Those tools might include trespass and the way they deal with cars. As has been noted, there is a clear and powerful message in the seizure of vehicles, which is an expensive circumstance for people to have to deal with, and the seizure of the dogs themselves. I know from  talking to the police in Lincolnshire that they are looking to seize dogs; they have organised the kennels, and even have the kennels outside Lincolnshire to make things more difficult. That sends a powerful message, because the dogs are valuable to the people who own them—they are worth tens of thousands of pounds. That is a very clear message that we and the police can send.
I join my hon. Friend who secured the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) who has just spoken in congratulating both of their forces on the excellent work they are looking to do to deal with issues around rural crime, as well as the work that others, including Lincolnshire police, are looking to do to develop this and make sure they are representing the needs of their local communities. I want to make it clear that, as I said a few moments ago, the decisions on how people allocate their resources and what local police are focused on is a matter for them to determine with their PCCs, based on their local knowledge, and working with their chief constables. If the police and the chief constable or the PCC are not focused on an issue such as this, I encourage people to bring it to their attention and make this point. I will happily continue to work on that as well. As I recently did, I will again be meeting the National Police Chiefs Council lead on rural crime and these issues to reinforce the strength of feeling outlined so clearly and eloquently by colleagues this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury outlined three particular requests. I have dealt with his second, but will now deal with his first and third points. On updating the legislation procedures around seizure, I will look at the powers the police have, although I think they have the powers they need and that the question is around how they are being used and implemented. However, I undertake to do some further work, again working with the National Police Chiefs Council lead on this issue, and I will get back to my hon. Friend on that, and involve him and any other colleagues interested in making sure they are up to speed with the work we are doing and what the opportunities are.
My hon. Friend’s third point was about the number of people who are actually being charged with these offences and the issue of farmers potentially feeling intimidated if they come forward as witnesses. We discussed that recently when I was in Lincolnshire, and there is a real challenge there. I want people to feel that they can come forward and work with the police both formally and informally, and we will continue to work to develop that.
In closing, I would like to thank not only my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury for securing the debate but all the hon. Members who have taken the time to be here today to highlight the genuine importance of ensuring that we are able to police and protect our rural communities properly. I also want to take this opportunity to commend and congratulate the police, who work hard to deal with this issue, as well as to remind them that we expect them to use the full set of tools at their disposal. I will support them in doing that as we move forward.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.